02/258/05 – spring 2006 version[Draft prepared by an ICRP Task Group– Not to be copied or referred to]

Annals of the ICRPICRP PUBLICATIONTHE SCOPE OF RADIOLOGICAL PROTECTION REGULATIONSABSTRACTThis report recommends criteria of a universal and generic nature for defining the radiation
exposure situations that can and need be subject to radiological protection regulations and thosethat cannot or need not. It suggests that the relevant legislation should specifically define thosesituations that should be covered by the legislation, because they can be controlled, and those that
may be excluded from legislation because they cannot be controlled by any reasonable means. It
also recommends that the legislation should empower regulators to define the extent ofapplication of regulatory requirements to the situations covered by the legislation. Regulators
should identify the situations than need be controlled with the full system of regulatory
requirements and those that are exempted from compliance with particular regulatory
requirements on the grounds that they need not be controlled because those requirements areunwarranted.
Legislative systems for purposes of radiological protection may exclude situations of radiation
exposure to cosmic radiation at ground level, to natural radioactive constituents of the humanbody (such as the radionuclide potassium-40), to substances containing an activity concentrationof less than around 1 Bq per kilogram for α emitting artificial radionuclides and around 10 Bq per
kilogram for β and γ emitting artificial radionuclides, to ambient radon below concentrations of
40 Bq m-3 and to any source that is unamenable to control by any reasonable means.
Exemption criteria were originally introduced for exempting a priori practices involving limited
amounts of ‘artificial’ radioactive materials. The concept was then extended to the exemption aposteriori of radioactive materials already regulated but for which regulation was no longer
warranted. These materials, therefore, could be cleared from the regulatory requirements.
Clearance criteria were developed for bulk amounts of materials. A fundamental exemption
principle was to keep individual risk at low levels, which became an individual dose criterion of
10 μSv in a year. The report recommends, however, that the criteria for exemption should bebroader and focus on unwarranted control, being situation specific and with multiple attributes.
While they should respect the low individual risk criteria, they should not be determined byindividual doses alone but include societal factors involved in determining whether or not it iswarranted to control certain exposure situations. Different situations may lead to different dosecriteria for exemption. For situations involving naturally occurring radioactive materials and forinterventional situations the use of an individual dose criterion of up to 1mSv in a year may beappropriate.
Exposure situations to naturally-occurring radioactive material may be considered either for ageneric regulatory exemption or for exclusion from legislative instruments, providing that theactivity concentrations of the radionuclides in the primordial uranium and thorium series arelower than 1000 Bq kg-1 and of potassium-40 lower than 10000 Bq kg-1. However, building
materials may warrant additional restrictions of the sum of the activity concentrations ofuranium-238, thorium-232 and potassium-40. Moreover, wherever ambient radon would
otherwise be regulated, exemption can be granted provided that the time-averaged radon
concentration does not exceed a minimum value of 200 Bq m-3 in dwellings or 500 Bq m-3 inworkplaces
Exposure situations to foodstuff and drinking-water containing radionuclides in activity
concentrations smaller than those specified by the Codex Alimentarious Commission and theWorld Health Organization respectively are candidates for automatic exemption. Situations
involving exposure to non-edible radioactive materials may be considered candidates forautomatic exemption from regulatory requirements if the activity or the activity concentration
does not exceed the values specified in the agreements reached under the aegis of internationalorganizations, as referenced in this report.

PREFACE
At its meeting in Paris, France, in March 2005 the International Commission on
Radiological Protection (ICRP), hereinafter referred to as ‘the Commission’, established a
Task Group to develop recommendations for defining the scope of radiological protection
regulations by exploring particularly the already established regulatory concepts of
exclusion and exemption.
The final membership of the Task Group was as follows:• Roger Clarke,• John Cooper,• Abel J. González (coordinador),• Ches Mason and• Anthony D. Wrixon.
For the preparation of the report, the Task Group met at the Laboratories of the UK
Health Protection Agency (HPA) in Chilton, U.K. The Commission wishes to express its
appreciation for the support received by the Task Group from HPA.
The report was first reviewed by the Commission at its meeting in Bern, on September
17th, 2005.
The Task Group benefited from further discussions with consultants convened by theInternational Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to develop working material on scope
within the framework of the process being undertaken by international intergovernmentalorganizations for reviewing of the International Basic Safety Standards for the Protection
against Ionizing Radiation and the Safety of Radiation Sources, or BSS. The consultancy,
which was chaired by the coordinator of the Task Group and took place in the IAEA
headquarters on January 30th – February 2nd 2006, included the participation of Georges
H. Coppée, representing the International Labour Organization, John R. Cook (transport
aspects), Alan Melbourne, Denis Wymer and Trevor Boal as well as the IAEA officers
who are Task Group members. The Commission wishes to express its appreciation to theconsultants and the IAEA for their contribution to the Task Group work.
The final edition was prepared by the Coordinator and approved by the Commission
through postal ballot for publication in the ICRP website for comments.

CONTENTEXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. Purpose
1.2. Regulations
1.3. Excluding and exempting: ‘de minimis’
1.4. Content: Issues for Defining Scope
2. COMMISSION’S RECOMMENDATIONS VIS-À-VIS REGULATORY SCOPE
2.1. The Assumption of No Threshold of Risk
2.2. The System of Radiological Protection
2.3. Radiation Exposure Situations
2.4. Classification of Exposure
3. DICHOTOMOUS CONTROL
3.1. Regulatory Attitudes to Exposure Situations
3.2. Considering ‘Natural’ Exposure Situations
4. UNAMENABLE CONTROL: EXCLUSION
5. UNWARRANTED CONTROL: EXEMPTION
5.1 Exemption Concept
5.2 Exemption Principles
5.2.1. The principle of low individual risk
5.2.2. The principle of optimization
5.2.3. The principles of justification and safety
5.3. Exemption Levels
5.4. Exemption from within: ‘clearance’
5.5. Exemption in Interventional Situations
5.6. Outlook: The Use of Exemption
6. CONSIDERATION OF SOME SPECIFIC SITUATIONS
6.1 Low-energy or – intensity Adventitious Radiation
6.2 Cosmic Rays
6.3 Use of Materials Containing Radionuclides of Natural Origin
6.3.1. Building Materials
6.4. Radon
6.4.1. A Significant Radiation Source
6.4.2. The Development of Recommendations on Radon
6.4.3. The Controllability of Radon Exposures
6.4.4. Excluding Radon Exposures Situations
6.4.5. Exempting Radon Exposure Situations
6.5. Commodities

6.5.1.Exempting Commodities in the Aftermath of an Emergency
6.6.Low-level Radioactive Waste
7. DEFINING RADIOLOGICAL PROTECTION REGULATIONS
7.1. Exclusion from Legislation
7.2. Exemption from Regulatory Control
7.3. Concluding Reflections

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY(a)
The Commission’s radiological protection recommendations are not limited inextent and cover all types of radiation exposure situations regardless of the size andorigin of the exposure. However, radiological protection regulations for controlling
exposures and their sources, which are usually derived from the Commission’s
recommendations, need a precise definition of their scope for both legal and practicalreasons. In this report the Commission provides recommendations to legislators andregulators for determining the scope of radiological protection regulations.
(b)
The report recommends criteria of a universal and generic nature for defining theradiation exposure situations that can and need be subject to radiological protection regulations
and those that cannot or need not. It suggests that the relevant legislation should specificallydefine those situations that should be covered by the legislation, because they can be controlled,
and those that may be excluded from legislation because they cannot be controlled by any
reasonable means. It also recommends that the legislation should empower regulators to define
the extent of application of regulatory requirements to the situations covered by the legislation.
Regulators should identify the situations than need be controlled with the full system ofregulatory requirements and those that are exempted from compliance with particular regulatory
requirements on the grounds that they need not be controlled because those requirements areunwarranted.
(c)Thus, the distinct concepts of exclusion and exemption are recommended to define
the extent of radiological protection regulations. Exclusion refers to the process ofidentifying radiation exposure situations that need not be covered by radiologicalprotection legislation because they are considered to be unamenable to control by any
reasonable means. Exemption refers to the process of identifying situations that are within
the scope of legislation but can be released from specified requirements because theirapplication is not warranted. While exclusion is a concept to be used by those entrusted toestablish radiological protection legislation, exemption is a concept to be used by thecompetent authorities entrusted to regulate the radiation exposure situations covered by
the applicable legislation. The concepts are modern parallels to the ancient legal
principles of de minimis non curat lex and de minimis non curat prætor, respectively,
which from Roman times have governed the legal problem of regulating trifles – that is,of regulating situations that are considered inconsequential or infeasible to control on one
hand, or unimportant or irrelevant on the other hand.
(d)The system of radiological protection recommended by the Commission
influences the formulation of the regulations and the definition of their scope. The
system’s crucial principles are the justification of actions entailing changes of radiation
exposure, the optimization of the measures undertaken for radiological protection and thelimitation of individual exposures. It is apparent that these principles should provide thebasis for deciding the scope of the radiological protection regulations. Another factor
influencing the definition of scope is the variety of possible circumstances involving
radiation exposure. The system of radiological protection deals coherently andconsistently with three different situations, namely prospective situations or practices,
extant situations and emergency situations, but its quantitative recommendations arediverse reflecting the uniqueness of each situation. The distinctiveness of these radiation
exposure situations logically influences the concept of scope and its quantitative
definition. However, the classification of exposures in occupational, patients and publicshould not influence the definition of the scope of the regulatory system. The definitionof scope occurs a priori of the classification of exposure and whether a source is going to
be used to expose workers, patients or members of the public has no bearing on thedecision of whether or not such source should be regulated(e)Dichotomous approaches to control radiation exposure have been not uncommon
in radiological protection. They seem to be an unavoidable result of the various degrees
of controllability among the possible exposure situations. But they also reflect different
public expectations under different circumstance of exposure. Such dichotomy, which
obviously influences decisions on the scope of the regulations, is particularly apparent
when pondering ‘natural’ versus ‘artificial’ exposure situations. While the detrimental
effects of radiation exposure relate to the amount of the exposure rather than to theorigins of the exposure, the degree of controllability varies considerably with theparticular situation. Experience shows that the desire for regulatory control appears to begenerally stronger when the source of the exposure is perceived to be a technological byproduct, and therefore ‘artificial’, than when it is considered to be ‘natural’. The
Commission recommends that radiological protection regulations should control
coherently and consistently any exposure regardless its origin, but – as the magnitude ofthe exposure is not the only factor that should determine the degree of control – theyshould also take account of the amenability of control as well as relevant social andeconomic factors, such as the concerns of those affected by the different exposure
situations.
(f)Radiation exposure situations that should be excluded from radiologicalprotection legislation are those that cannot reasonably be considered as amenable tocontrol. For naturally-occurring sources of exposure, these include exposures frompotassium-40 incorporated into the body, potassium being a basic constituent of tissue,
from cosmic rays at ground level, from radon in ambient air with activity concentration
below 40 Bq m-3, and from unmodified concentrations of radionuclides in most raw
materials (see paragraph (i)). For radionuclides of artificial origin, it is recommended
that substances containing an activity concentration of less than around 1 Bq per kilogramfor α emitting radionuclides and around 10 Bq per kilogram for β and γ emitting
radionuclides may be excluded from legal instruments. Definition of other exposures thatcannot reasonably be considered as amenable to control requires a judgment on the partof the legislator, which may be influenced by cultural perceptions. There has been a lackof consensus as to whether some exposures to naturally occurring radioactive materials
should be excluded from the scope of regulations, or treated with some kind of genericexemption. National legislative practices should be allowed to determine the mechanism
by which the scope of regulatory requirements is defined. However, the Commission
suggests that, depending on national practice, exclusion and generic exemption can beconsidered for exposure situations to ambient radon.

(g) The legislative framework should in addition provide for exemption of radiation
exposure situations that are considered unwarranted for regulation. However, exemption
should not be granted to exposure situations that are deemed to be unjustifiable, such as
the deliberate incorporation of radioactive substances in food, beverages, cosmetics or
any other commodity or product intended for ingestion, inhalation, percutaneous intake
by, or application to, a human being, and the frivolous use of radioactive substances in
products such as toys and personal jewellery or adornments. Moreover, potential
exposure situations cannot be exempted if the uncertain exposure, if it occurs, could besignificant.
(h)
The basis for exemption is that control be not considered to be warranted. Strictly,
the term ‘exemption’ has a legal context and can only apply to persons, either physical or
legal persons, as it relates to the waiving by the regulatory authority of requirements thatwould otherwise apply to a person as a legal obligation. The general principles governing
the process of exemption were agreed internationally several years ago. The consensus
can be summarized as follows: (i) the individual risk attributable to the radiation exposure
caused by an exempted practice or source should be low (this was judged to correspondto a trivial average individual dose in the critical group of around 10 μSv in a year within
a distribution that may include values much higher than the average); (ii) radiologicalprotection should be optimized taking into account the commitment of resources required
to implement regulatory control; and, (iii) any exempted practice should be justifiable andits sources should be inherently safe. The Commission recognizes these previously
accepted principles but emphasizes that exemption should no longer be linked primarily
to triviality of individual dose. Some situations could be considered as not warranting
control, and subject to exemption, even if they may lead to individual average doses
above 10 μSv in a year. For exemption of situations involving naturally occurring
radioactive material and of interventional situations (see paragraph (n) below), the dosecriterion could justifiably be established in the order of 1 mSv in a year.
(i) Exposure situations to cosmic radiation above ground level are obvious candidates
for exemption. Moreover, taking into account the ubiquity of naturally occurring
radioactive material and the international agreements reached on whether to control thesematerials, legislators may provide either for empowering regulators to establish a genericregulatory exemption for such materials or, depending on national practice, for theirstraightforward exclusion from legislative instruments. The conditions for such genericexemption would be that the activity concentrations of the radionuclides in the primordial
uranium and thorium series should be lower than around 1000 Bq kg-1 and ofpotassium-40 lower than around 10000 Bq kg-1. However, building materials may
warrant a more restrictive consideration of the sum of the activity concentrations ofuranium-238, thorium-232 and potassium-40. Exposure situations to ambient radon are
not generally subject to regulatory control, and the concept of exemption in this case ismore elusive. Nevertheless, exemption may be considered for ambient radon (i) in
dwellings provided that the time-averaged radon concentration does not exceed aminimum value of 200 Bq m-3 and (ii) in workplaces provided that the time-averaged
radon concentration does not exceed a minimum value of 500 Bq m-3.

Kommentar [AM1]: Theprovision for exemption on a caseby case basis as described in para
94 should also be summarisedhere.

(j) Food containing radionuclides in activity concentrations smaller than thosespecified by the Codex Alimentarious Commission [Codex Alimentarius, 2004] anddrinking-water containing radionuclides in activity concentrations smaller than thosespecified in the drinking-water quality guidelines of the World Health Organization[WHO, 2004] are candidates for exemption.
(k) Situations involving exposure to non-edible radioactive materials can be exemptedon the basis of the activity or activity concentration in the materials. The Commission has
taken note of the international agreements reached for this type of situations. These
agreements imply that such situations could be considered for automatic exemption from
regulatory requirements, including those for notification, registration or licensing andsubsequent inspection, under the following conditions: the activity, at any one time, ofmaterial in a practice, should not exceed the values specified in the BSS (see [IAEA,
1996], Schedule 1, Table I-1), or the activity concentration in materials in a practice inamounts of 1 ton or less should not exceed the values specified in the BSS (see [IAEA,
1996] Schedule 1, Table I-1); while in transport, the activity of material should notexceed the values specified in the Transport Regulations [IAEA, 2004 (c)], or the activity
concentration of materials in transport irrespective of their amount should not exceed thevalues specified in the Transport Regulations [IAEA, 2004 (c)], or the activity
concentration in materials, irrespective of their amount, in a practice or for unrestricted
release from a practice, should not exceed the values specified in the guidance on
Application of the Concepts of Exclusion, Exemption and Clearance [IAEA, 2004 (b)]and established in the Resolution GC(44)/RES/15 of the IAEA General Conference[IAEA, 2004 (a)].
(l) The following sources of exposure may be considered as candidates for a genericexemption of universal application: (i) apparatuses and devices emitting adventitious
radiation, if they are of a type approved by the regulatory authority and they do not cause
in normal operating conditions an ambient dose equivalent rate or a directional dose
equivalent rate, as appropriate, exceeding around 1 μSv h-1, at a distance of 0.1 m fromany accessible surface of the apparatus, or the maximum energy of the emitted radiation
is no greater than around 5 keV; and, (ii) apparatuses and devices containing radioactive
substances, if they are of a type approved by the regulatory authority and are nototherwise exempted, provided that the radioactive substances are in the form of sealed
sources that effectively prevent any contact with radioactive substances or their leakage
and, in normal operating conditions, they do not cause an ambient dose equivalent rate ora directional dose equivalent rate, as appropriate, exceeding around 1 μSv h-1 at a
distance of 0.1 m from any accessible surface of the apparatus.
(m)
The use of the term exemption has been mainly limited to the process that
determines a priori the nature and extent of application of regulatory requirements to theintroduction of a practice involving radiation exposure or of radiation sources within thepractice. But there is also the possibility (and necessity) of using exemption a posteriori,
i.e., of relinquishing control on materials that originally were not exempted but then may
be freed from some regulatory requirements because their control is no longer warranted.
The term clearance was introduced to describe this process of exempting from within, i.e.

surrendering regulatory control. It is recommended that the concept be used with care: theword clearance has an ambiguous meaning and is not easily and reliably translatable into
other languages, which can sometimes cause confusion and misunderstanding. An
extraordinary situation of removal of radioactive materials within authorized practices
from any further control is the case of release from hospitals of nuclear medicine patients
who have incorporated them while in radiotherapeutical treatments or radiodiagnosis.
Exposure to any discharge of radioactive material into the environment, if it is duly
authorized by the competent authority and complies with the requirements of theCommission’s system of radiological protection, need not be subject to further control;
but the discharge is a process of authorized release not of clearance.
(n)
The report uses the term exemption also for exemption from requirements forintervention. This is a new use of the term, as up to now it has been used primarily for
exemption from requirements for practices (except its use in the context of intervention
exemption levels for commodities in international trade). The concept of exemption
within the context of interventions presents a particular challenge. Interventions may or
may not be subject to a formal system of regulations. In the case of practices, it isexpected that there will be an increase of exposure due to the introduction of the practice
and, when the expected increase is sufficiently low, the source causing the increase may
be exempted from regulations because it may be unwarranted to regulate such low doses.
Conversely, in the case of interventions, an increase of exposure is not expected as resultof the intervention but, on the contrary, a reduction in exposure should be anticipated.
Thus, in an interventional situation, such as an extant situation of very high backgroundor a post-accident situation, the crucial radiological protection decisions are (i) whether it
is justifiable to intervene with protective actions, and (ii) if so, how much the doses haveto be reduced. An annual dose of around 1mSv could be construed to be the lower boundfor selection of action levels for interventions and this level could operate as a de facto
exemption level. However, in some situations, particularly in emergency situations,protective actions to reduce a dominant component of the annual dose below 1mSv in ayear may still be possible below the exemption level of and might be justifiable. On theother hand, the 1mSv in a year value should not be taken as an automatic trigger forconsideration of action levels, as this level can prove impractical for intervening in somespecific situations such as radon in dwellings and workplaces. In summary, exemption
levels for intervention must be used with caution and regulatory bodies wishing toestablish action levels at these low dose levels should carefully considered the whether
intervention is warranted by balancing the consequences of the intervention against thebenefit in terms of improved radiation protection.
(o) While the framework set out above provides a basis for establishing the scope of
regulatory control, some regulatory authorities may wish still to keep in force somerequirements for the notification, and in some cases even for the registration, of specificsources complying with the criteria for exemption described in this report. Suchdecisions are a matter for national legal practice. Also supplementary to the generalframework, separate recommendations may be needed for sources causing rare
circumstances of exposure, such as from radioactive releases and residues in theaftermath of accidents or acts of war or terrorism involving radiation exposure.

(p)Whether the principles of de minimis non curat lex or ‘exclusion’, or de minimis
non curat prætor or ‘exemption’ are used to give legal effect to the various componentsof the recommendations in this report depends on national legal and regulatory practice.
The Commission is sensitive to the fact that throughout the world there are different
legislative cultures that are the origin of diverse regulatory approaches. The concept ofdefining what is 'controllable' up front through a system of defined scope is certainly
consistent with international standards, but it need not be the only approach, and indeed it
may well be unacceptable to some countries. Thus, while the Commission recognises themechanisms of exclusion and exemption for determining regulatory scope, it is careful
about being categorical on their use by national authorities. The Commission wishes tostress that the controllability of radiation exposure is an issue that can be addressed on asituation-by-situation basis and through the principle of optimization of protection, butalso points out that the quantitative recommendations in this report can be used to solve
in practice the problem of defining the scope of radiological protection regulations.

THE SCOPE OF RADIOLOGICAL PROTECTION REGULATIONS
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. Purpose(1) The Commission provides radiological protection recommendations that apply to any
situation involving radiation 1 exposure 2 , regardless the origin of the exposure, thecharacteristics of its source 3 and the magnitude of the resulting doses 4 . Following theCommission’s recommendations and in order to exercise an effective control 5 of
exposures and their sources, competent authorities establish legally binding systems ofradiological protection regulations 6 . In contrast to recommendations, which have ageneral application, these systems need to have a defined and finite scope 7 . The
definition of the regulatory scope requires ascertaining which radiation exposure
situations can be brought under legal obligations and which of those need be subjected tosubsequent regulatory control.
(2) The determination of the scope of radiological protection regulations has been amajor challenge. Both at the national and international level, approaches to define theextent of regulatory systems have not been completely consistent. Simple definitions ofregulatory scope are incorporated in the International Basic Safety Standards for theProtection against Ionizing Radiation and the Safety of Radiation Sources, or BSS[IAEA, 1996], which are based on the latest Commission’s recommendations in ICRP
1

The term radiation is used to mean ionizing radiation.
The term exposure is used in a generic sense to mean the process of being exposed to radiation or radionuclides, the significance ofthe exposure being determined by the resulting radiation dose (See ICRP Publication 60, paragraph 40 [ICRP 1991]).
3
The term radiation source (or source in short) is used to mean individual physical sources of radiation, such as radiation generatorsand radionuclides (e.g. as sealed radioactive materials), and also, more generally, to indicate the cause of exposure to radiation or toradionuclides in radioactive substances. For instance: if radioactive materials are released from an installation to the environment, theinstallation as a whole may be regarded as a source; if they are already dispersed in the environment, the portion of them to whichpeople are exposed may be considered a source.
4
The Commission uses the term ‘dose’ as a generic term that can apply to any of the relevant dosimetric quantities [ICRP
1991,paragraph S4]. The principal dosimetric quantities in radiological protection are the mean absorbed dose in a tissue or organ, DT,
the energy absorbed per unit mass; the equivalent dose in a tissue or organ, HT, formed by weighting the absorbed dose by theradiation weighting factor, wR; and the effective dose, E, formed by weighting the equivalent dose by the tissue weighting factor, wT,
and summing over the tissues. . . .The unit of absorbed dose is the gray (Gy), and the unit of both equivalent and effective dose is thesievert (Sv) [ICRP 1991, paragraph S2]. In this report, the Commission will use as relevant quantity the effective dose. This is the sumof the time integral, over a period of time, of the effective dose rate due to external irradiation and the committed effective dose due tointernal contamination caused by all intakes of radinuclides during that time. The effective dose, unless otherwise indicated, will be
simply termed ‘dose’ in this report and the unit used for this quantity will be one thousandth of a sievert (Sv), or millisievert (mSv).
5
The term control is used to mean restrictions imposed by law through regulatory authorities on a practice involving radiation
exposure, or on a particular radiation source, or on the radiation exposure itself. The term can be directly translated into many
languages because of its Latin origins. The Commission notes and warns, however, that both in English and notably in otherlanguages, the term is sometimes confused with the distinct concepts of verifying, authenticating, substantiating, corroborating,confirming, etc, perhaps because the term derives from the Latin word contrarotulare, from contrarotulus ‘copy of a roll’, fromcontra- ‘against’ + rotulus ‘a roll’.
6
The term regulation (and its derived qualifier, regulatory) is used with the wider connotation of a system of rules recognized by acountry or community for regulating the protection against exposure to ionizing radiation. The term encompasses both the legislation,or assembly of laws providing the legal basis for the system, and its derived regulations proper, i.e., the byelaws, the governing
principles, procedures and code of practice, the standards and norms, the directives (or authoritative instructions, directions or order),guidelines (or general piece of advice) as well as any other authoritative decision or pronouncement established by a competentregulatory authority in matters of radiological protection.
7
The term scope is used to mean the extent to which regulatory systems should deal with exposures and sources, i.e. the extent towhich it is relevant the opportunity or possibility for exercising regulatory control.
2

Publication 60 [ICRP, 1991], and also in other multinational instruments. However, acomprehensive international agreement on the issue of regulatory scope has been elusive.
(3) In this report the Commission provides recommendations for determining the scopeof radiological protection regulations, which could be used by for legislators 8 andregulators 9 . Its main purpose is therefore to recommend universal and generic criteria for
deciding: (i) which radiation exposure situations should be covered by the relevant
legislation and, conversely, which may be considered by the legislator for exclusion fromthe legislation; and, (ii) which situations, among those covered by the legislation, should
be fully regulated by the regulatory systems and, conversely, which may be considered by
the regulator for exemption from complying with specific regulatory requirements. The
quantitative recommendations in the report are intended only as indicators 10 for defining
the regulatory scope, because the definitive boundaries establishing the situations that canor need be regulated would depend on national approaches.
1.2. Regulations(4) The risk of harm is ever present, with some hazards occurring naturally and others
resulting from human activity. When a human activity carries a risk of harm, as is thecase with activities involving radiation exposure, the person responsible for the activity is
ethically responsible for the protection of affected people and for the overall safety of theactivity. Modern societies give legal expression to such responsibility through regulation.
The regulatory system sets out what the legislator requires and how regulators apply thelegal requirements. It provides society with the assurance that responsible persons will beheld to account to fulfil their obligations.
(5) There is an expectation, deriving from principles of good governance, that theapplication of regulatory systems for protection and safety will strike an appropriatebalance between what is necessary to avoid harm, on the one hand, and the optimal use ofsocietal resources on the other. It would clearly require a disproportionate expenditure ofsocietal resources to regulate all human activity, without taking account of the scale ofassociated risk or the efficacy of regulatory controls. Furthermore, the stringency ofregulatory requirements placed on an activity should be commensurate with the scale ofrisk arising from the activity. This policy of optimal regulatory control directs therequired protection and safety measures to areas where they should be effective andavoids wasteful expenditure of resources and unnecessary restrictions on civil freedoms –because any regulatory system ought to guarantee the preservation of individual andsocietal freedoms recognized by the society. Consequently, there is a need to define theextent of regulatory requirements by ascertaining what can be regulated (or, conversely,
what is unamenable to regulatory control and cannot be regulated) and what need beregulated (or, conversely, what does not warrant regulatory control and need not be
8

The term legislator is used to mean the members of the national legislative bodies entrusted to draft laws for purposes of radiologicalprotection and, in an analogous sense in regard to international bodies, those members of the governing bodies of internationalorganizations that establish international radiological protection standards.
9
The term regulator is used to mean those entrusted by the legislation to control or supervise radiation sources and the exposure theyentail by means of rules and regulations. In legal systems derived from Roman civil law, it is used as a synonym of the term procurator
in the sense that it is a governmental agent representing the interest of those exposed to radiation.
10
The term indicator is used to mean an amount of a quantity that suggests regulatory control is feasible and warranted.

regulated). The regulations are then applied to situations that fall within the defined
range, but not to others.
(6) While the concept of optimal regulatory control can be stated quite simply, as above,it has proved difficult to reach an international consensus on defining in detail theboundary of application of regulatory requirements for radiological protection. The lackof a universal agreement on the scope of radiological protection regulations may breed
ambiguity and inconsistency in regulatory approaches and consequently inhibit a muchneeded international coherence in the control of radiation sources and their exposures.
Considerable resources could be spent unnecessarily if the regulatory scope is notproperly defined and radiation exposures and sources that cannot or need not be regulated
are subjected to formal controls. In addition, if controls are not coherent and consistentworldwide, irregularities may arise that affect the efficiency of radiological protection
and that impose unjustified barriers to trade and commerce in the global economy. In thisregard, the Commission’s intention with this report is to be helpful to international
intergovernmental organizations, which have been instrumental in trying to stimulate
global harmony in the characterization of the scope of radiological protection regulations.
1.3. Excluding and exempting: ‘de minimis’(7) The two distinct concepts universally used for defining the scope of radiologicalprotection regulations are the exclusion from radiological protection legislation and theexemption from radiological protection regulatory requirements. Any regulatory systemshould define the radiation exposure situations that can be regulated and should becovered by the legislation and, conversely, those that can be excluded from the law andits scheme of regulations. In addition, the system may also define non-excluded situations
that need be fully regulated and, conversely, those that could be exempted from someregulatory requirements because the application of such requirements is unwarranted.
Thus, while exclusion is related to defining the legislative scope of radiologicalprotection, exemption is related to a release from compliance with specific regulatory
obligations.
(8) The concepts of exclusion and exemption are modern parallels to the ancient legal
principles of de minimis non curat lex and de minimis non curat prætor, respectively,
which originated in Roman law two millennia ago and since then have governed the legal
problem of regulating trifles. It should be noted that, within the context of this report, theconcept of trifle is used to mean inconsequential or infeasible, unimportant or irrelevantfrom a regulatory point of view and not necessarily as a synonym of triviality (e.g., of asmall amount of radiation dose). The de-minimis-non-curat-lex principle addresses thesituations that the law should (or should not) take account of, or cover. The de-minimisnon-curat-prætor principle addresses the situations, among those covered by the law,which can be freed by the procurator or regulator from some or all-regulatory controls. In
radiological protection regulatory terms the concept of exclusion derives from de minimis
non curat lex and simply determines what situations should - and what may not - besubject to regulatory legislation and subsequent control. The concept of exemption
derives from de minimis non curat prætor and determines what situations should not -and what may - be freed a priori from some or all regulatory control established by thelaw.
(9) The Commission notes that ‘de minimis’ expressions have not always been properly
used in radiological protection. In particular, the grammatically erroneous 11 phrase 'deminimis dose' has been mistakenly interpreted as a dose below which any risk can betaken to be zero. This has created unnecessary problems, as it has been perceived bysome critics as an attempt by vested interests to trivialize the risk of harm from exposure
to radiation. The Commission has never recommended the use of the concept of ‘deminimis dose’ and strongly suggests to those who may still be employing it that theyabandon its usage.
1.4. Content: Issues for Defining Scope(10) The report addresses the major issues surrounding the definition of the scope ofradiological protection regulations, which mainly relate to the controllability of radiation
exposure situations. They are as follows:• Control may be influenced by the radiological protection approaches implicit in theCommission’s recommendations. Control may be different in the various types ofsituations addressed in the recommendations. For instance, while the control ofplanned situations is, in principle, always possible, the control of existing situations
may be subject to practical limitations.
• Control can appear to be dichotomous 12 in some circumstances. While thedetrimental effects of radiation exposure relate to the amount of the exposure rather
than to the exposure situations, the degree of controllability may vary considerablyaccording to the circumstances and this produces a sense of dichotomy. For instance,
the societal desire for regulatory control is generally stronger when the source of the
exposure is perceived to be a technological by-product, and therefore ‘artificial’, thanwhen it is considered to be a ‘natural’ outcome. As discussed later, this appearance ofinconsistency is resolved when the question of controllability is properly addressed.
• Some situations may be unamenable 13 to control through any reasonable means. For
instance, certain exposures are simply unavoidable and in some situations control is
unfeasible, at least without inordinate effort.
• Control may be unwarranted 14 . For instance, some sources may be amenable tocontrol but they deliver such low amounts of exposure that control is neither
justifiable nor necessary.
11
In the expression ‘de minimis non curat lex (or prætor)’, 'de minimis' is an ablative phrase, serving as the object of the verb 'curare'– 'to take care of'. The expression has the meaning: 'of the smallest (of things) the law (or the procurator or regulator) does not takecare', which is usually rendered in English as: 'the law does not concern itself with trifles'. Unfortunately, some unknown author used'de minimis' incorrectly as an adjectival phrase in the contrived expression 'de minimis dose', which proved to be more than just a
syntactical blunder as it came to be interpreted as a dose below which there is no attendant risk. Such a misuse and misinterpretation
flies in the face of the presumption that there is no threshold of risk, and it has thereby caused much confusion.
12
The adjective dichotomous is used in the report to express the division and contrast existing between the control of different
exposure situations, such as natural and artificial exposure situations, which are perceived to be based on entirely different criteria.
13
The adjective unamenable (and its derivatives unamenability, etc) is widely used in the report with the meaning of incapable ofbeing acted on. Thus, a radiation exposure situation is said to be unamenable to control if the competent authorities cannot in practice
impose restrictions on the situation.
14
The adjective unwarranted is used in the report to indicate that regulatory requirements for radiological protection purposes areunjustified or unnecessary.

This report first discusses all these issues and explores how regulators have been dealing
with them. It then provides recommendations aimed at helping legislators and regulators
to define the regulatory scope of radiological protection.
2. COMMISSION’S RECOMMENDATIONS VIS-À-VIS REGULATORY SCOPE(11) While the Commission’s role is to provide radiological protection
recommendations, national or international competent authorities have the mandate toestablish the radiological protection regulations. Recommendations and regulations are
distinct notions. The recommendations provide the fundamental epistemologicalframework and the basic paradigm for protecting people against radiation exposures. In
contrast, the regulations provide the legal and formal structure for controlling radiation
sources and their exposures. The recommendations are not limited in extent and cover all
exposures whatever their magnitude and origin. Conversely, the regulations need a clear
definition of their scope for practical and legal purposes. In spite of this distinction,
radiological protection recommendations and regulations also retain a robust association.
Some issues that relate the recommendations vis-à-vis the regulations are discussed
below.
2.1. The Assumption of No Threshold of Risk
(12) A significant issue associating the Commission’s recommendations with thedefinition of the regulatory scope is their basic assumption that any exposure – however
small – can be detrimental to health. While the risk of radiation harm is presumed to be
minute at low radiation doses, the Commission’s position is that following any
incremental increase in dose above the unavoidable background dose there is assumed to
be a proportional, small but finite, increase in the likelihood of occurrence of somecancers and hereditary effects. This hypothesis forms the basis of the Commission’sradiological protection policy for low-level exposures and is applicable to all exposures,
however small, regardless of their origin – whether natural or artificial. Thus, theCommission's recommendations are based on the circumstances giving rise to exposure,and not on whether the exposure originates from a natural or an artificial source or onwhether its amount is high or low.
(13) The premise that there is no threshold below which detrimental properties cannot
be assigned to radiation can confuse the assessment of what should be regulated, as it
may induce a desire to extend the regulatory scope indefinitely. The fact that even trivial
levels of radiation and radioactivity are detectable with current measuring techniques may
strengthen such perception. These, however, should not be considered convincing
arguments for including all exposures and sources within the scope of the formal
regulatory systems used to control radiation exposure situations. The definition of thespectrum of situations that such systems should cover is actually a far more complicatedchallenge, and raises a number of societal, cultural and legal issues. For instance, accountneeds to be taken of the amenability of controlling the exposure situation and of whether
or not control is warranted. Legislators and regulators should concentrate on situations

where regulatory systems can be applied and, when applied, they can bring about positive
net benefits in terms of radiological protection. The fact that the Commission’s
recommendations are concerned with any level of radiation exposure however small does
not mean that all radiation exposure situations can or need be formally regulated andcontrolled.
2.2. The System of Radiological Protection(14) The system of radiological protection recommended by the Commission
influences the formulation of the regulations and the definition of their scope. The
system’s crucial principles are the justification 15 of actions entailing changes of radiation
exposure, the optimization 16 of the measures undertaken for radiological protection, andthe limitation 17 of individual exposures. It is apparent that these principles should provide
the fundamental basis for deciding the scope of the radiological protection regulations.
2.3. Radiation Exposure Situations(15) Another factor influencing the definition of scope is the variety of possible
circumstances involving radiation exposure. The Commission recognizes two broadly
circumstances of exposure, namely:• Exposures introduced by new human endeavours, which would not exist in theabsence of such endeavours. The endeavours and the exposures they produce are
fully controllable in the sense that, in principle, they could be prohibited and theexposure avoided altogether, or the increase in exposure they cause can be restrictedby regulatory means in a prospective manner. The Commission gives the name‘practices’ to these circumstances of prospective controllable exposure.

15

The Commission uses the term justification to refer to the process of proving that actions that entail a change in radiation exposure
are right or reasonable, i.e. that there are a good reason for undertaking the actions because they will produce more good than harm. It
has been used by the Commission in the context of justifying the introduction of a practice and the undertaking of protective actions.
The Commission’s recommendations on justification are as follows (see [ICRP 1991, paragraphs S 18 and 113]): (i) no practice
involving exposures to radiation should be adopted unless it produces sufficient benefit to the exposed individuals or to society tooffset the radiation detriment it causes (the justification of a practice); and (ii) the proposed intervention should do more good thanharm, i.e. the reduction in detriment resulting from the reduction in dose should be sufficient to justify the harm and the costs,
including social costs, of the intervention (justification of interventions).
16
The Commission uses the term optimization to refer to the process of achieving the best protection against radiation exposure while
taking account of the prevailing circumstances. It is considered a synonym to the aim of keeping doses as low as reasonably
achievable (or ALARA), social and economic considerations being taken into account. . It has been used by the Commission in thecontext of optimizing the radiation protection at the introduction of a practice and during the undertaking of protective actions. The
Commission’s recommendations on optimization are as follows[ICRP 1991, paragraphs S 18 and 113]:: (i) in relation to any particularsource within a practice, the magnitude of individual doses, the number of people exposed, and the likelihood of incurring exposures
where these are not certain to be received should all be kept as low as reasonably achievable, economic and social factors being taken
into account, where the procedure should be constrained by restrictions on the doses to individuals (dose constraints), or the risks toindividuals in the case of potential exposures (risk constraints), so as to limit the inequity likely to result from the inherent economic
and social judgments; and, (ii) the form, scale, and duration of the intervention should be optimized so that the net benefit of the
reduction of dose, i.e. the benefit of the reduction in radiation detriment, less the detriment associated with the intervention, should be
maximized. The Commission has issued specific recommendations on the implementation of the optimisation principle (see [ICRP,
1983 and 1989])
17
The Commission has formulated the principle of individual limitation as follows (see [ICRP 1991, paragraph S 18]): exposure ofindividuals resulting from the combination of all the relevant practices should be subject to dose limits, or to some control of risk inthe case of potential exposures. These are aimed at ensuring that no individual is exposed to radiation risks that are judged to beunacceptable from these practices in any normal circumstances. Not all sources are susceptible to control by action at the source and itis necessary to specify the sources to be included as relevant before selecting a dose limit.

•Exposures already present in the human habitat, either because they were always
there (extant exposures) or because they were generated by an unexpected situationsuch as an accident. These exposures are less readily controllable. The regulator
may intervene to apply regulatory measures that restrict the magnitude of the total
exposure. Thus, they can be reduced but cannot be avoided entirely. The Commission
has used the term ‘intervention’ to describe the action taken to reduce exposure inthese circumstances [ICRP 1991].
This description of controllable and interventional circumstances forms the core of theCommission's current system of radiological protection 18 . As will be seen, the definitionof scope varies considerably according to these circumstances.
(16) Usually it is not difficult to distinguish circumstances of prospective exposure, or
practices, from interventional circumstances and, therefore, it should not be difficult todecide whether or not the circumstance should be considered under regulatory scope.
Practices are adopted as a matter of a planned choice in order to gain some individual or
societal benefit. There is a conscious decision to adopt a beneficial practice and to
regulate it. Therefore, there can be a conscious decision to determine whether a practice
is within or outside the regulatory scope. Conversely, an interventional circumstance is
not generally a matter of choice but one that exist de facto. The intervention is intended toreduce extant exposures caused by such a de facto condition. The source already exists atthe time when the interventional circumstance is being considered, is not tied to any
particular societal benefit specifically related to the source and is usually not subject to aformal regulatory system. The consideration of scope in interventional cases is therefore
more subtle: the issue is not whether the situation is inside or outside a formal regulatory
system but rather whether it is worthwhile to consider intervention or not.
(17) Thus, the clearest distinction between practices and interventions is the ability tochoose a priori whether to accept beneficial sources and the consequent exposures. If achoice is still available, the exposure can usually be said to be due to a practice andcontrol can and should be planned in advance. If there is no choice, because the sources
already exist, any action undertaken to reduce exposures is an intervention. It should be
noted, however, the Commission has advised that when introducing the concepts ofpractice and intervention, it did not intend to imply that any human activity that mightcause increases in an individual's exposure is a practice, nor that any human activity thatmight reduce an individual's exposure is an intervention 19 . For instance, normal
modifications of living habits which may increase or reduce the individuals' backgroundexposure (for example, a move to another part of the country or a change in the type ofhome) should not be treated either as a practice or as an intervention and should not be
subject to the Commission's system of radiological protection. In these backgroundexposure cases, the exposure is excluded from consideration unless it reaches a level atwhich intervention is called for.
18

The concept of the system of radiological protection for practices and for interventions were introduced by the Commission in
Publication 60 [ICRP 1991], paragraph 106. Practices were defined as ‘human activities [that] increase the overall exposure toradiation. . .’ and interventions as ‘human activities [that] can decrease the overall exposure. . .’, respectively. The concepts were
further discussed in ICRP Publication 82 [ICRP, 1999], Section 1.4 and Annex D. The Commission is now considering to merge thesesystems into a common system mainly based on individual dose constraints and optimisation of protection.
19
See [ICRP 1999], paragraph D25.

(18) The Commission notes that some difficulties may have arisen from the regulatory
use of concepts such ‘practice’, ‘intervention’ and ‘natural’ spelled out in its 1990
recommendations. For instance, while the Commission’s recommendations contain aconceptual definition of ‘practice’, for regulatory purposes, it may be necessary to tighten
up the description of what a practice really is. A practice is an endeavour that causes anincrease in exposure to radiation or in the risk of exposure to radiation. An endeavour can
be a business, trade, industry or any other productive enterprise; it can also be agovernment undertaking or a charity. The qualification of a practice as an endeavour
helps to better define what the Commission means by practices and to specify theboundary of what should be regulated and what need not. It also has the benefit thatendeavours, such as those described above, are already defined in legislation for otherpurposes and moreover the legal person responsible for them is also defined, so that it
becomes clear to whom the regulations apply.
(19) There are, however, some circumstances of exposure that are not easy tocategorize and therefore difficult to decide whether to regulate or not. One particular caserelates to the use of materials that may have been contaminated by authorized radioactive
discharges into the environment, which has been argued previously by the Commission 20 .
The Commission advises that any environmental radioactive materials from authorizeddischarges should not be subject to further controls unless the environmental pathways tohumans change. However, if a new use of environmental materials is proposed, forexample the harvesting and consumption of a type of shellfish not previously consideredin the assessment of the discharges, it may be possible to include the new circumstanceunder the typical regulatory control for practices. If that is not feasible, it may benecessary to deal with the environmental accumulation as an interventional circumstancewith its corresponding influence on scope. In this context, a notable difficulty for
categorization arises from the incorporation of radionuclides into commodities: thisparticular case will be treated separately in Chapter 6.
(20) Another difficult case is presented by exposure situations caused radioactive
residues from earlier human endeavours that were not regulated at their origins.
Moreover, these endeavours may continue to be active. A controversial issue related tothe definition of scope is whether these types of situations should be subject toregulations 21 . The origins (and originators) of some of these endeavours may not be eventraceable. It may not be reasonable or even feasible to impose on society today the efforts
and other disadvantages of the protective actions needed for restricting exposures, aposteriori, to levels that were not considered, a priori, by those who decided to carry out
the original activity or event at the time. Authorities can therefore consider these cases aslying outside of the scope of regulatory systems unless exposures reach a level at whichintervention is justified. However, in principle, there are no impediments in these cases toregulate the situation restricting exposures to ad hoc levels. In fact, there do exist
radioactive residues that are traceable to a precise original activity or event that20
21

See [ICRP 1999], paragraph D26.
See [ICRP 1999], paragraphs 107 and 108.

sometimes occurred not long ago. Moreover, in many of these cases, those who caused
the situation can still be made retrospectively liable for the required protective actions.
For example, the radioactive residues remaining from recent accidents usually havetraceable origins and the liabilities of the originators are sometimes (although not always)
straightforward. In these cases the imposition of regulatory actions to those responsible
for the situation, in order to achieve some pre-selected individual dose restriction, could
be considered by the competent authorities a reasonable and justifiable measure. These
actions would need a limitation in their scope. If the endeavour continues to be active, it
could in principle be treated as a practice in its own right but keeping in mind that it may
be unfeasible to impose restrictions that were not originally envisaged. A case-by-caseconsideration seems to be the only option in these cases.
(21) In summary it follows that, while there are many specific circumstances of
exposure, in general terms the common radiation exposure situations 22 can be describedas follows:• prospective exposure situations in which the introduction of a radiation exposure
arises from a particular human endeavour that is planned in advance and where
therefore radiological protection can be controlled a priori;• existing exposure situations, which describe extant circumstances of exposure, andbackground exposure situations, where the only practicable action is intervening withprotective measures; and,• emergency exposure situations, which are the result of unplanned and unexpectedcircumstances such as accidents.
The Commission’s system of radiological protection deals coherently and consistently
with these three different situations but its quantitative recommendations are diverse andreflect the uniqueness of the situations. The distinctiveness of these radiation exposure
situations logically influences the concept of scope and its quantitative definition.
Therefore, whether an exposure situation is considered prospectively for introduction, oris extant, or is the result of an anticipated accident or emergency, has a bearing on thedecision of whether or not such situation should be regulated.
2.4. Classification of Exposure(22) Another feature to be considered in the definition of scope is the classification of
exposures according to those exposed. The Commission’s recommendations categorize
radiation exposure into three types, namely: occupational exposure, which is the
exposure incurred at work, and principally as a result of work; medical exposure, which
is principally the exposure of persons as part of their diagnosis or treatment; and public
exposure, which comprises all other exposures23 . This categorization has an enormous
influence in the formulation of radiological protection requirements. However, the type of
exposure should not in principle influence the definition of the scope of the regulatory
system. In fact, the definition of scope occurs a priori of the classification of exposure.
Therefore, whether a source is going to be used to expose workers, patients or members
22

The term radiation exposure situation will be hereinafter used in the report to mean any set of circumstances in which people areexposed to radiation.
See [ICRP 1991], paragraph 109.

23

of the public has no bearing on the decision of whether or not such source should be
regulated.
(23) The Commission has also divided radiation exposure into two broad categories:
normal exposures and potential exposures 24 . As will be discussed hereinafter, situationsof potential exposure, where the exposure -if it occurs- is expected to be high, should
always be covered by the regulatory scope even in the case that the corresponding normal
exposures are minute.
3. DICHOTOMOUS CONTROL(24) Dichotomous approaches to control radiation exposure have been common inradiological protection. They seem to be an unavoidable result of the various degrees ofcontrollability among the possible exposure situations. But they also reflect different
public expectations under different circumstance of exposure. Dichotomous control
obviously influences decisions on the scope of the regulations.
3.1. Regulatory Attitudes to Exposure Situations(25) Societal and regulatory attitudes in relation to the possible diverse radiation
exposure situations have been extremely variable. For prospective exposure situations orpractices, experience has shown that society expects a significant expenditure ofresources to be applied to containing the expected exposures. Regulators have beenreacting to this societal demand with very stringent regulations with an inclusive scope.
For instance, exposure of members of the public from all regulated practices is required
to be limited at very low levels and regulatory controls are expected to apply to evenminute levels of dose. This attitude may reflect a perception that the societal efforts forsuch control measures are warranted and commensurate with the societal benefits arisingfrom the practice. Conversely, experience has shown that societal expectations for the
scale of resources to be applied to restricting extant exposures are much lower. For
example, regulatory controls are usually not applied to extant exposure situations
involving ‘natural’ radiation in spite of the fact that the levels of exposure can be high(this issue is discussed further in the next section). This may reflect a judgement that – forthese circumstances – the societal efforts for meeting regulatory requirements to reduce
extant exposure would be out of proportion to the benefit achieved. Logically, thisattitude should have a parallel consideration when deciding the scope of regulations for
dealing with these situations. In contrast again, experience is different with emergency
situations. While the exposure situation in the aftermath of an emergency can beconsidered to be also an interventional situation, the ambition in these cases seems to bemuch higher than for extant situations. The societal attitude in these cases seems to bethat, because a failure has occurred, society expects to be as fully protected as possible.
24

In the Commission's terms (ICRP 1993a, paragraph 2; ICRP 1997b, paragraph 6), normal exposures are those exposures which canbe reasonably expected to occur, i.e. the exposure is predicted to occur with the probability of one or near one, and potential exposures
are those exposures for which there is a potential, but not a certainty, of occurrence. They may be foreseeable and their probability ofoccurrence estimated, but they cannot be predicted in detail. A conceptual framework for protection from potential exposure ispresented in ICRP Publication 64 [ICRP 1993], while some applications to selected radiation sources are presented in ICRP
Publication 76 [ICRP 1997].

3.2. Considering ‘Natural’ Exposure Situations(26) An issue that seems to influence this dichotomy is the ubiquity of radiation
exposure and its influence on the perception of ‘natural’ exposure situations. Radiation
exposure is an unavoidable natural phenomenon. Every human being, every constituentof the biota, everything on Earth is subject radiation exposure arising from two maintypes of sources: those characterized as ‘of natural origin’, such as cosmic radiation andprimordial radionuclides; and, those attributable to human activities, which are often
considered as ‘of an artificial origin’ (this is a peculiar distinction that will be discussed
hereinafter). Virtually all substances in the world are radioactive to some extent because
they inevitably contain radionuclides of natural origin and traces of radioactive residues
remaining in the human habitat from past human activities. Only for the purpose of thisreport, when the Commission refers to radionuclides of natural origin it is referring topotassium-40 and to the decay chains of the primordial radionuclides 25 .
(27) The average radiation dose to the world’s population from background radiation(mainly natural radiation) is estimated by the United Nations Committee on the Effects ofAtomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) to be around 2.4 mSv in a year [UNSCEAR, 2000]. But
many large populations live in areas of the world experiencing doses of around 10 mSv ina year with extremes up to 100 mSv and more. It is to be noted that UNSCEAR estimates
exposure to radionuclides of natural origin is the largest contributor to human exposure.
Logically, this fact should have triggered more stringent radiological protection measuresagainst natural exposures, but the opposite happened. In fact, natural radiation exposure
has not been dealt with comprehensively in radiological protection standards. As a result,
there has been also a dichotomy in the way that the scope of the standards has been
defined for ‘natural’ versus ‘artificial’ exposure situations.
(28) Thus, radiation and radioactivity have been qualified with the adjectives ‘natural’and ‘artificial’. Seemingly, it was considered useful to deal separately with primordial
radiation and radioactivity and those defined as ‘manmade’. However, as any material
may contain both natural and artificial radionuclides, in many situations it is difficult toseparate the exposure attributed to the artificial component from that due to the naturalcomponent. For instance, some radionuclides that are of natural origin can also be
produced ‘artificially’. Conversely, others, which are produced by humans, and are
therefore considered ‘artificial’, are also produced by natural phenomena. Moreover,protective measures against the artificial component can affect the exposure due to thenatural component and vice versa. It seems, therefore, that the application of thequalifiers ‘natural’ and ‘artificial’ to radiological protection situations is not necessarily
helpful. Further controversy may arise if the qualifiers are applied to sources and even25
The primordial radionuclide decay chains are: (i) the thorium series, headed by thorium-232, the most abundant of all naturally
occurring radionuclides, with a half-life of 1.41 1010 years, and constituted by 228Ra(5.75 a), 228Ac (6.15 h), 228Th (1.913a), 224Ra (3.66d), 220Rn (55.6 s), 216Po (0.145 s), 212Pb (10.6 h), 212Bi (60.6 m), 212Po (0.299 ms), 208Tl (3.05 m), and 208Pb (stable); (ii) the uranium
series, headed by uranium-238, with a half-life of 4.47 109 years, and constituted by 234Th (24.1 d), 234mPa (1.17 m), 234U (2.45 105 a),230
Th (7.54 104 a), 226Ra (1600 a), 222Rn (3.82 d), 218Po (3.10 m), 214Pb (26.8 m), 214Bi (19.9 m), 214Po (164 ms), 210Pb (22.3 a), 210Bi(5.01 d), 210Po (138 d), and 206Pb (stable); and, (iii) the actinium series (which is the less important for the purpose of this report),
headed by uranium-235, with a half-life of 7.04 108 years, and constituted by 231Th (25.5 h), 231Pa (32,800 a), 227Ac (21.8 a), 227Th(18.7 d), 223Fr (22.0 m), 223Ra (11.4 d), 219Rn (3.96 s), 215Po (1.78 ms), 211Pb (36.1 m), 211Bi (2.14 m), 207Tl (4.77 m), and 207Pb (stable).

more so to exposures. In summary, the distinction between ‘natural’ and ‘artificial’radiation exposure has proved to be peculiar, certainly not precise, and unconstructive.
(29) Notwithstanding the above arguments, the Commission has noted that members of
the public and their representatives seem to maintain a distinction between natural andartificial exposure. They appear to have different views on how to deal with ‘natural’versus ‘artificial’ situations of radiation exposure. It seems they wish to weight highly
those radiation risks attributable to technological sources (considered ‘artificial’) versus
those due to truly ‘natural’ sources. As a result, the societal expectation for protection,and consequently for regulatory control, has been generally stronger when the source of
exposure is a technological by-product rather than when it is considered to be a productof nature. This has usually resulted in differently perceived needs for response and, again,
in a dichotomous scale of protection, depending on the origin of the exposure. Typicallyelevated exposures due to natural radiation sources have not generated a social anxiety,while relatively minor exposures to radioactive residues from human endeavours havebeen a cause of concern sometimes prompting unwarranted protective actions.
(30) The public concern for artificial exposures may reflect the way the Commission’sradiological protection recommendations, and the derived regulatory systems of control,
have developed over the years…or vice versa!. It is plausible that the advent of thenuclear age led automatically to a focus on ‘artificial’ radionuclides, with less attention
paid to a few situations involving ‘natural’ radionuclides that were sometimes controlled
previously such as the extraction and use of some primordial radioelements, for instanceradium, uranium and thorium. Furthermore, societal views seem to have developed to bemuch more risk-averse to readily controllable ‘artificial’ sources than to othercircumstances of exposure from not-so-controllable ‘natural’ sources. This is partly
because of public perceptions about radiation risks, and also because it has been foundfeasible to control minute doses from ‘artificial’ practices and usually prohibitively costly
to exercise control in existing situations of natural exposure.
(31) In dealing with the above-described ‘natural’ versus ‘artificial’ controversy, theCommission confronts a dilemma with contradictory premises: on the one hand, theCommission recognises that the societal level of ambition has historically been higher for
those radiation exposures that society perceives as a by-product of technologicaldevelopment; on the other hand, it recognises that it is the relative magnitude of the
exposure that correlates with risk. The Commission has resolved this difficult dilemma byrecommending that radiological protection regulatory systems should include natural
sources of exposure and should regulate coherently and consistently any exposure
regardless its origin but should also take account of the amenability of control as well as
the expectations of those affected by the different exposure situations.
4. UNAMENABILITY TO CONTROL: EXCLUSION

(32) The Commission has addressed the concept that certain exposures may be
excluded from regulatory systems in its latest recommendations 26 . The concept isreflected in the BSS 27 . Excluded exposures are those that are essentially unamenable tocontrol, regardless of their magnitude, and include exposure to natural radioactive
constituents within the human body that are homostatically controlled (such as theradionuclide potassium-40), to cosmic rays at ground level and to unmodified
concentrations of the naturally occurring radionuclides in most raw materials. Exposuresof this kind are to be excluded from radiological protection legislation simply because
they are deemed to be unamenable to be controlled.
(33) The determination of what exposure situations are essentially unamenable tocontrol requires a judgment on the part of the legislator, which may be influenced bycultural expectations and therefore can differ substantially around the world. It should
result from analyses similar to those used in the application of the Commission’s
principles of justification and optimization. For instance, exposures to cosmic rays at theearth's surface could theoretically be modified but the cost and disruptive consequencesof protection measures seem to be unjustified. Thus, exposure to cosmic rays at groundlevel is universally considered unamenable to control and protection de facto optimized.
Large cities have been sited at high altitudes (e.g. La Paz, the populous capital of Bolivia
is located at an altitude of around 4000 metres) and their inhabitants incur a substantively
higher cosmic ray exposure than those living at sea level; however, public authorities
have not considered ‘amenable’ or ‘optimum’ to move these cities to lower altitudes inorder to avoid the public exposure of the residents.
(34) An important and controversial issue related to the exclusion concept is whether
or not exposures to so-called natural occurring radioactive material (sometimes referred
to as NORM 28 ) should be considered amenable to control (the issue will be further
discussed in Chapter 6, as an important specific case). National attitudes to the regulationof natural occurring radioactive material are extremely variable. For instance: people inmany countries enjoy beaches with monazite sands, which are rich in naturally occurring
radioactive material able to deliver high radiation exposures, but legislators in thesecountries have not considered it reasonable to enforce radiological protection regulations
against this type of exposure; conversely, in other countries, the transport of evenrelatively small amounts of similar types of sands is under strict regulatory control. The
diversity of national approaches to the protection against naturally occurring radioactive
material is generating an inconsistent regulatory control of the myriad of industries
processing these types of materials.

26

See [ICRP 1991], paragraph 291, where the Commission recommended that “Sources that are essentially uncontrollable, such ascosmic radiation at ground level and potassium-40 in the body, can best be dealt with by the process of exclusion from the scope of theregulatory instruments,...”
27
See [IAEA 1996], article 1.4, which establishes that “…any exposure whose magnitude or likelihood is essentially unamenable tocontrol through the requirements of [the international radiological protection standards] should be deemed to be excluded from thestandards”
28
The term ‘naturally occurring radioactive material’ (NORM) has become widely accepted in the mining and minerals processing
industry to denote any material associated with operations in this industry in which radionuclides from the 238U, 235U or 232Th decay
series, or 40K, are present in concentrations sufficient to warrant the consideration of control measures. The term is, however,somewhat of a misnomer, since the descriptor ‘naturally occurring’ applies to the radionuclides in the material and not always to thematerial itself.

(35) The Commission’s guidance on protection against exposure to naturally occurring
radioactive material has not been thoroughly developed and, unsurprisingly, thesubsequent international standards are ambiguous. The current international standards
refer to exposure from “unmodified concentrations of radionuclides in most raw
materials” as an example of an excluded exposure 29 . The reference to “unmodified
concentrations” may be construed to point to the fact that processing some raw materials
containing radionuclides of natural origin at low concentrations of radioactivity, may leadto radioactive byproducts or radioactive wastes or radioactive residues that have muchhigher levels of radioactivity concentration and therefore need be controlled byregulations. The reference to “most raw materials” in the international standards may beconstrued to indicate that there may well be a few industries using them whereradioactivity concentrations are high enough to require consideration and control of their
exposures. An extreme but generally accepted case is the production of uranium or
thorium ores, which have traditionally been included in the scope of regulatory systems
practically without exception; but exposures from some other raw materials may also be
similar and need to be considered to be included in the regulatory system. There is apractical need for an international consensus on whether exposures to naturally occurring
radioactive material should be excluded from (or perhaps, more appropriately, included
within) the scope of regulations, or whether they should be treated with some kind ofgeneric exemptions.
5. UNWARRANTED CONTROL: EXEMPTION
5.1 Exemption Concept(36) The concept of exemption has been in international use for some years. It wasrecommended by the Commission in its main recommendations in Publication 60 [ICRP,
1991] 30 and, in its Publication 64 [ICRP 1993(a)], the Commission provided guidance for
exempting certain practices and their sources from some regulations 31 . The concept waselaborated by intergovernmental organizations [IAEA, 1988] and incorporated in the BSS[IAEA 1996]. It was originally envisaged within the context of the introduction ofpractices, mainly involving artificial radionuclides, and it was not foreseen for use in
See [IAEA 1996], footnote 2.
The Commission policy was stated ICRP Publication 60, paragraphs 285-288, as follows: ‘In order to avoid excessive regulatory
procedures, most regulatory systems include provisions for granting exemptions…The Commission believes that the exemption ofsources is an important component of the regulatory functions…There are two grounds for exempting a source or an environmental
situation from regulatory control. One is that the source gives rise to small individual doses and small collective doses in bothmaterials containing radionuclides of natural original and accident conditions. The other is that no reason- able control procedures
can achieve significant reductions in individual and collective doses. The basis for exemption on the grounds of trivial dose is muchsought after, but very difficult to establish. Apart from the difficult of deciding when an individual or a collective dose is small enoughto be disregarded for regulatory purposes, there is a considerable difficulty in defining the source…The underlying problem is thatexemption is necessarily a source-related process, while the triviality of the dose is primarily individual-related.’ Thus, theCommission has also indicated that: ‘The second basis for exemption calls for a study similar to that needed in the optimization ofprotection. It provides a logical basis for exemption of sources that cannot be exempted solely on the grounds of trivial doses, but for
which regulation on any reasonable scale will produce little or no improvement.’
31 In ICRP Publication 64, paragraph 86, the Commission summarized its current criteria for exemption levels for practices as follows‘In the case of materials containing radionuclides of natural original exposure, most regulatory systems include provisions for
granting exemptions from the regulatory system where it is clear that a practice is justified but regulatory provisions are unnecessary.
The grounds for exemption are that the source gives rise to small individual doses (of the order of 10 microsieverts per year) and theprotection is optimised, i.e. regulatory provisions will produce little or no improvement in dose reduction. (If the collective dose issmall, e.g. on the order of one man-sievert per year, protection is often assumed to be optimised).’29

30

interventions. Not surprisingly, national and international standards are rather detailed on
the use of exemption for prospective situations and generally mute for extant or
emergency exposure situations.
(37) The basic concept introduced in the BSS is that practices, and sources within
practices, may be exempted from regulatory control if such control was not warranted.
For instance, this would be the case if control would be not justified in radiologicalprotection terms because protection is optimized without control. The BSS state thatpractices and sources within practices may be exempted from requirements of thestandards provided that they comply with exemption principles (see next section) or with
exemption levels defined by the regulatory authority on the basis of those exemption
principles 32 . They also state that exemption should not be granted to permit practices thatwould otherwise not be justified 33 .
(38) A practice, or a source within a practice, that is exempted is not supposed to beoutside the legislative system of radiological protection or beyond the regulatory domain
established by the legislation. Rather, the exemption is from some administrative aspectsof the applicable regulations such as the requirements for notification, registration or
licensing and subsequent compliance measures such as inspections and reporting.
(39) The Commission wishes to stress that the term ‘exemption’ has strictly a legal
context and can only apply to persons, either physical or legal persons. It relates to thewaiving by the regulatory authority of requirements that would otherwise apply to aperson as a legal obligation. In international standards the term is in fact used to describe
a practice for which regulatory requirements are not applied to the person responsible forthe conduct of the practice. This usage – ‘exempt practice’ - is an extension of the strict
meaning, which is now commonplace and clear. The word ‘exempt’ is also used inreference to the relinquishment from some, but not all, requirements that would otherwise
apply: not an ‘exempt practice’, but a practice which is exempt from certain requirements–and it is important to state from “what” the practice is being exempted.
5. 2. Exemption Principles(40) The principles for exempting practices were internationally established several
years ago and published as the Principles for the Exemption of Radiation Sources andPractices from Regulatory Control [IAEA, 1988], hereinafter referred to as the
Exemption Principles. They were incorporated in the BSS [IAEA 1996]. Theinternational consensus can be summarized as follows: there are two basic principles fordetermining whether or not a practice can be a candidate for an exemption, namely (i)the expected individual risks attributable to the practice must be sufficiently low as not
to warrant regulatory concern; and, (ii) radiation protection, including the cost of
regulatory control, must be optimized. Thus, a person responsible for a practice orsource may be exempted from radiological protection regulations if the individual risk
attributable to the radiation exposure caused by the exempted practice or source is judged
32
33

See [IAEA 1996], para. 2.17
See [IAEA 1996], para. 2.18

to be low and the consequent detriment is irrelevant vis-à-vis the commitment of
resources implied the protection to be achieved trough the regulatory control. An
additional principle, which is an overriding condition for exemption, is that the exempted
practice must be justifiable and its sources must be inherently safe.
5.2.1. The principle of low individual risk(41) The Exemption Principles [IAEA, 1988] provided the first guidance on typicallevels of individual risk, and corresponding dose, that were understood to be low for the
purposes of exemption. They indicate two main approaches that can be considered indeciding whether a level of risk or dose is low: firstly, to choose a level of risk, and thecorresponding dose, which is of no significance to individuals; secondly, to use theexposure to the natural background, to the extent that it is normal and unavoidable, as arelevant reference level. From risk-based considerations the Exemption Principles
conclude that the level of low dose would be in the range of 10–100 µSv per year, andfrom natural background considerations, the conclusion is that it should be in the range
20–100 µSv per year 34 . Thus, they concluded that: “…an individual radiation dose,regardless of its origin, is likely to be regarded as trivial if it is of the order of sometens of microsieverts per year. It is noted that this level of dose corresponds to a few
per cent of the annual dose limit for members of the public recommended by the ICRP
and is much smaller than any upper bound set by competent authorities for practices
subject to regulatory control.” This value was intended to refer to an average individual
annual dose in the critical group. Moreover, the unavoidable statistical distribution ofdoses in any situation of exemption would imply that some individuals may be exposed
to higher doses than ‘some tens of microsieverts per year’, within a distribution that may
include extremes that conveivably could be orders of magnitude higher than the average.
(42) Even taking account of upward revisions of risk factors over the last decade or so,
the basis behind the derivation of an exemption criterion of the order of some tens of
microsieverts per year as being representative of a trivial dose is still sound. If anything,
this criterion could be regarded as being still rather conservative, bearing in mind theassumptions about an individual simultaneously receiving doses from several practices
judged to be exempt.
(43) When the above principle of low risk was introduced in the BSS, its formulation
was simplified as follows (see [IAEA 1999], Sch I, para I-3): “A practice or source
34

The international Principles for the Exemption of Radiation Sources and Practices from Regulatory Control state that [IAEA 1988]“…there is a widely held, although speculative, view that few people would commit their own resources to reduce an annual risk ofdeath of 10-5 and that even fewer would take action at an annual level of 10-6. Most authors proposing values of trivial individual dose
have set the level of annual risk of death which is held to be of no concern to the individual at 10-6 to 10-7. Taking a rounded risk
factor of 10-2 Sv-1 for whole body exposure as a broad average over age and sex, the level of trivial individual effective dose equivalentwould be in the range of 10–100 µSv per year.” They also state “…The natural background radiation has been estimated to give, as
an average, an individual dose of about 2 mSv per year. This average conceals a wide variation due to different concentrations ofradioactive materials in the ground and in building materials, as well as differences due to different altitudes and habits of living. On
a global average, about half of this dose is due to radon exposure, a source for which controls are suggested. The other half comesfrom exposure to cosmic rays, terrestrial gamma rays and radionuclides in the body, for which control is impractical…Individual
members of the public do not generally take account of the variation in exposure to natural background radiation when considering
moving from one part of the country to another, or when going on holiday. It can, therefore, be judged that a level of dose which issmall in comparison with the variation in natural background radiation can be regarded as trivial. A figure of whole body or effective
dose equivalent of the order of one to a few per cent of natural background, i.e. 20–100 µSv per year, has been suggested”.

within a practice may be exempted without further consideration provided that…theeffective dose expected to be incurred by any member of the public due to the exempted
practice or source is of the order of 10 µSv or less in a year”. Thus, the original criterionof an average of some tens of microsieverts per year within a distribution of doses
became 'of the order of 10 μSv in a year', and then, when imprecisely interpreted, cameto be known as the 10 μSv in a year criterion – a significant ratcheting down of theoriginal judgment.
(44) At this stage, a de facto psychological association seems to have arisen between theprinciple of exemption and the so-called 10 μSv in a year criterion, which made them
quasi-synonymous. The association broke down when the exemption concept was
intended to be applied to ‘natural’ sources, as it would be quite unfeasible to apply a 10
μSv in a year criterion to situations involving exposure to naturally occurring radioactive
material. Wider considerations are required for this type of situation, including
consideration that a broad distribution of doses to very high values would be unlikely.
(45) It is worthwhile to repeat that the basic quantitative principles of exemption,
including the criterion “of the order of 10 µSv per year” that was converted into the 10
μSv in a year criterion, were developed within the context of practices involving sources
containing ‘artificial’ radioactive materials in moderate quantities. The application ofsuch principles to situations involving radionuclides of natural origin, where these were
not already excluded, was limited to the incorporation of such radionuclides into
consumer products or their use as a radioactive source (e.g. 226Ra, 210Po) or for theirelemental properties (e.g. thorium, uranium). If an exemption criterion of 10µSv in a year
were imposed on situations involving naturally occurring radioactive material, it would ingeneral not be practicable to implement a control scheme for such a small increment to
the natural radiation background, an increment that is in fact one or two orders ofmagnitude below the variability of the natural background. This contrasts with thesituation for radionuclides of artificial origin, where the natural background is close tozero.
(46) It should be recalled the original formulation of the Exemption Principles and theCommission’s own position on the subject. The Commission had stated,…“there are two
grounds for exempting a source or an environmental situation from regulatory control.
One is that the source gives rise to small individual doses and small collective doses inboth normal and accident conditions. The other is that no reasonable control procedures
can achieve significant reductions in individual and collective doses.” 35 This wider
approach is consistent with the original Exemption Principles and fully applicable tosituations with naturally occurring radioactive materials (namely, uranium and thorium
series and potassium-40). It has been so recognized by the European Commission, which
has stated that“… the definition of [exemption] values for natural sources cannot proceedon the basis of trivial risk criteria… If one would impose a restriction of 10 µSv it wouldin general not be practicable to implement a control scheme for such a small increment
to the natural radiation background, in fact below the natural variability.”36
35
36

See [ICRP 1991], Paragraph 287.
See Part II of [EU, 2001].

(47) Thus, the key point on the applicability of the individual principle for exemption tonaturally occurring radioactive materials is that the background dose level due to thesematerials, and more importantly its variability, are one or two orders of magnitude above
10 µSv per year while, conversely, for other radionuclides the background dose is close
to zero. The Commission has indicated that… ‘a study similar to that needed in the
optimization of protection…provides a logical basis for exemption of sources that cannot
be exempted solely on the grounds of trivial doses, but for which regulation on any
reasonable scale will produce little or no improvement.” 37 This approach to exemption is
generally more appropriate and meaningful for situations involving exposure to naturally
occurring radioactive materials. National authorities in an increasing number of countries
are coming to the conclusion that regulation will not produce any significant
improvement if the naturally occurring radioactive materials concerned gives rise toannual doses of less than around 1 mSv (excluding the dose from radon, which is dealt
with separately), and are consequently deciding not to regulate such activities. This isconsistent with recent international agreements on the Application of the Concepts of
Exclusion, Exemption and Clearance, which state: “Doses to individuals as aconsequence of these activity concentrations [selected on the basis of consideration of theupper end of the worldwide distribution of activity concentrations in soil provided by
UNSCEAR] would be unlikely to exceed about 1 mSv in a year, excluding thecontribution from the emanation of radon …”38 .
(48) Therefore, for exemption of situations in practices involving exposure to naturally
occurring radioactive material, the second of the two grounds for exemption (see [ICRP
1991], paragraphs 285-288) — exemption on the basis that “regulation on any reasonable
scale will produce little or no improvement” — is more appropriate and meaningful thanexemption on the grounds of trivial dose. Regional variations in total effective dose fromthe natural radiation background (external exposure only) are some hundreds ofmicrosieverts per year [Green, 1993], and this should be borne in mind when determining
a level below which regulation would not produce a significant improvement. This iseffectively the approach that was taken by the Commission for the situation ofoccupational exposure (see [ICRP Publication 75], paragraphs 158-161), which
recommended that “regulatory agencies choose activity concentrations of parent nuclides
within the range 1–10 Bq/g to determine whether the exposures from these materials
should be regarded as occupational” (and thus whether they should be considered forregulatory control). Although the approach in this case was based on activity
concentrations in naturally occurring radioactive materials rather than on dose, it wasnoted that, when considering exposure to external radiation and inhalation of dust, thisrange of activity concentrations “will lead to an effective dose [received by a worker] of
about 1–2 mSv in a year”. Furthermore, it has been reported that, for releases ofradionuclides of natural origin from “typical installations or operations of the minerals
processing industry” (which are known to handle naturally occurring radioactive
materials with typically a similar range of activity concentrations), the maximum
effective doses received by members of the public ranged from 0.1–300 µSv in year
37
38

See [ICRP 1991], Paragraph 290.
See [IAEA 2004b], Paragraph 3.3).

[UNSCEAR, 2000]. Thus, the individuals receiving by far the highest dose from practices
involving naturally occurring radioactive material are likely to be workers rather thanmembers of the public. This implies that, should such practices be considered for
exemption on the basis of dose, it is the dose received by workers that is important, andthat a if the dose received by a worker does not exceed the Commission’s dose limit formembers of the public of 1 mSv per year, this might be an appropriate criterion for
exemption from regulations of situations involving exposure to naturally occurring
radioactive material.
(49) From the above discussion it is clear that the principle of low individual risk for the
purpose of exemption of practices may be linked to a dose criterion but it should lose its
historical and dogmatic connotation with the single value of 10 μSv in a year . Figure 1
describes how the principle is being applied in the most common situation of sources
within practices. At the time when a practice is to be introduced, the expected dose
attributable to the practice is tested against the dose exemption criterion, whatever it
might be for the appropriate circumstances. If the expected dose is lower (and the othertwo principles complied with), the practice may be exempted. The 10 μSv in a year
criterion has been widely used for exemption of artificial sources and its acceptance forthis purpose is well recognized. For exposure from naturally occurring radioactive
materials, the criterion might well be established in the order of 1 mSv in a year.

Expected dose level after introduction

Δ
Backgrounddose level

Exemption criterion

time

Introduction of a practice(Δ=Expected dose attributable tothe introduction of the practice)

Figure 1

5.2.2. The principle of optimization

A second condition for granting exemption is that exemption would be the(50)
optimum radiological protection option. The resources required for regulation are a factor
to be considered in the assessment. On cost-benefit grounds, it was suggested [IAEA,
1988] that if the collective dose committed by one year of the unregulated practice wereless than around 1 man-sievert, the expected detriment would be low enough to permit
exemption (other conditions complied with) without more detailed consideration of otheroptions. This does not mean that a practice giving rise to a larger collective dose could
not be exempted. In fact, if no control is the optimum solution in radiological protection
terms, exemption should be granted in such cases. In should be noted that this collective
dose criterion has not been a determining factor in the exemption of practices, because
the individual criterion has always been found to be more restrictive.
5.2.3. The principles of justification and safety
Exemption from regulatory requirements cannot override the justification(51)
principle. Exemption could not be invoked to allow practices that are deemed to beunjustifiable. The BSS include in this category practices involving the deliberate additionof radioactivity to food, beverages, cosmetics or any other commodity or productintended for ingestion, inhalation or percutaneous intake by, or application to, a humanbeing and the frivolous use of radioactive substances in commodities or products such as
toys and personal jewellery or adornments.
(52) Moreover, potential exposure situations 39 , where the exposure may be unlikely
but significant, cannot be exempted either. Within this context the term ‘inherently safe’
used in the Exemption Principles means that there is very little likelihood of a mishap that
could cause exposures that would fail the individual dose criterion.
5.3. Exemption Levels(53) The exemption principles were applied to develop radionuclide-specificinternational exemption levels that could be used directly and universally for deciding
whether or not to exclude a specific situation. As discussed before, the 10 µSv in a year
criterion took prominence in the development of exemption levels. On the basis of someassumptions, a set of generic exposure scenarios was construed and used to derive (i)total activities and (ii) activity concentrations of radionuclides, both corresponding to the
10 µSv in a year criterion. Because of the unavoidable dose distribution, doses in excess
of 10 µSv in a year could theoretically be received, although probably not in excess of thedose limit for members of the public.
(54) The derived exemption levels were established in the BSS 40 . Similar assessments
were made for the specific case of transport of radioactive materials and ad hoc
exemption levels were established in the international Regulations for the Safe Transport
39

The concept of potential exposure was introduced by the Commission in Publication 60 (ICRP 1991a, paragraph 111), as an
exposure having the potential `but not the certainty that it will occur'. The concept was further elaborated in Publication 64 (ICRP
1993a) and Publication 76 (ICRP 1997b).
40
See [IAEA 1996], Schedule I (the same values were also incorporated in the Euratom Basic Safety Standards)

of Radioactive Materials [IAEA, 2004 (c)], hereinafter referred to as the Transport
Regulations. The Transport Regulation exemption levels are coherent and broadly
consistent with the levels established in the BSS.
(55) The defined scenarios for the exemption levels assumed small-scale usage ofradionuclides. Situations involving large volumes of materials with very low activity
concentrations were not explicitly considered. Candidate practices where those involving
small-scale usage of radionuclides, such as medical research. Industries where large
quantities of naturally radioactive ores or materials were being processed for other thantheir radioactive properties were not considered in the development of the exemption
levels. This incompleteness in the assessment of exemption levels has been corrected
recently. An international safety guide on the Application of the Concepts of Exclusion,
Exemption and Clearance [IAEA, 2004 (b)] provides exemption levels of activity
concentration in bulk amounts of materials.
(56) It is to be noted that international practice also provided for conditional exemptionof radioactive materials that were not covered by the radionuclide specific levels
described before. Such exemptions were supposed to be used for devices such as smoke
detectors containing small amounts of radioactivity. It is also recognized that inestablishing exemptions, the regulatory authority may set conditions, for example, on thephysical or chemical form of the radioactive source and on use or disposal, so that thegeneral principles for exempting a practice are complied with.
5.4. Exemption from within: ‘clearance’(57) The concept of exemption is used to determine a priori whether to regulate a
specific practice. But, conceivably, the concept can also be used a posteriori, i.e. toconsider the exemption from within the system. The BSS use the term ‘clearance’ todescribe the process of exemption from within, i.e., a posteriori exemption of sourcesthat for one reason or another are under regulatory control and do not warrant continued
regulation. Thus, clearance is defined in international standards as: “removal ofradioactive materials or radioactive objects within authorized practices from any further
control by the Regulatory Authority” 41 . Figure 2 describes how the system of exemption
and clearance is expected to work in practice.

41

See BSS, Glosary, page 297

Universe of Radiation Exposure Situations
Exclusion

Application for
Authorization

Exclusion

Regulation

Clearance

SourceExemption

Exclusion

Regulatory
Control
Regulatory
DomainExclusion

Figure 2(58) Although the intention of international standards was to limit the concept ofclearance to an administrative exemption from obligations already undertaken within thesystem, the English term used did not help to convey the anticipated idea. The term“clearance” has many different meanings in English 42 , which are completely unrelated tothe concept of exemption. Moreover, the English term is not directly translatable into
other languages. It was translated as “libération” (liberation) in French and as“dispensa” (dispensation) in Spanish. Not surprisingly, this situation led to different
interpretations of the concept and resulted in some confusion.
(59) In contrast to exemption, ‘clearance’ is specifically defined as applying tomaterials and objects. Materials that have been cleared have been released from any priorform of regulatory control or, more accurately, regulatory controls no longer apply to theperson previously responsible for the materials. Clearance can be seen therefore as theprocess of relinquishing regulatory control. In professional parlance, the term ‘cleared
sources’ has been used, but this then raises issues about the relationship between ‘cleared
source’ and ‘exempt source’. As the two terms have some common features but are notprecisely synonymous, a further confusion can occur. One difference between these twoterms is essentially that an exempt source is still within the scope of regulatory
instruments while a cleared source usually becomes de facto outside any feasible control.
For an exempt source, there remains a legal person who is theoretically identifiable in law
42
The term clearance is commonly used in colloquial English to mean: the action or process of clearing or of being dispersed, a kickor hit (in soccer and other games) that sends the ball out of a defensive zone, the potting of all the balls remaining on the snooker
table in a single break, official authorization for something to proceed or take place, and clear space allowed for a thing to move past.
These meanings have no relation with the intended meaning of clearance in relation to exemption.

as responsible for the source and any consequences arising from its use –even though nospecific regulatory requirements apply– and the exemption remains valid only as long as
the criteria for exemption continue to be met. For a cleared source, on the other hand, any
future exposure it causes is de facto excluded from the regulatory framework and thepreviously responsible person is freed of liability. Thus, in principle, regulatory
requirements could be applied to the person responsible for an exempt source byretracting the exemption (although such action might lead to legal challenge), whereas acleared source is beyond the reach of regulatory instruments unless it becomes part of anew practice that requires regulatory control.
(60) The Commission has noted an extraordinary situation of removal of radioactive
materials within authorized practices from any further control by the regulatory authority
where clearance criteria are not used. This is the case of relinquishing control ofradioactive substances through release from hospitals of nuclear medicine patients who
have incorporated such substances while undergoing radiotherapy or radiodiagnosis. The
maximum activity for discharge is established in the BSS, which state that in order torestrict the exposure of any members of the household of a patient who has undergone atherapeutic procedure with sealed or unsealed radionuclides and members of the public,
such a patient shall not be discharged from hospital before the activity of radioactive
substances in the body falls below a predetermined guidance level. Such levels are
extremely high by comparison with other situations of clearance: for example, 1100 MBq(!) for iodine-131 43 . The guidance provides some relief by footnoting that ‘in somecountries a level of 400 MBq is used as an example of good practice’ 44 . While theCommission has issued a large number of detailed recommendations for proper
radiological protection in the medical practice and the BSS specifically require thatwritten instructions to the patient concerning contact with other persons and relevant
precautions for radiation protection shall be provided as necessary, it is apparent that inthis practice clearance is being given de facto for relinquishing control of large amounts
of some radionuclides, such as iodine-131. It should be noted that the exemption levelestablished in the BSS for this radionuclide is just 1 MBq, compared with hundreds of
MBq 'cleared' within a patient. This is the only situation where clearance levels are higher
than the exemption levels. It would be inappropriate to treat this practice as an authorizeddischarge in the conventional sense (see next paragraph): the activities involved are toolarge (the level per patient is similar to the annual release of a typical nuclear power
plant) and the conditions attached to the release are too lax. The Commission isconcerned with this situation and encourages international organizations to revisit theissue of relinquishing control of substantial amounts of radioactive substances used in
medical practices through the discharge of patients.
(61) The Commission also notes that the term clearance has been used incorrectly in
relation to the discharge of radioactive materials into the environment, for instancedischarges from a nuclear installation. The Commission has recommended that controlled
discharges of radioactive materials from approved practices should be governed by anauthorization of discharge, which may have conditions attached including, for example,
43
44

See [IAEA 1997] paragraph II.28.
See [IAEA 1997], Schedule III, Table III-VI.

requirements for environmental monitoring [ICRP, 1985 (a)] –the lower the assessed
dose to members of the public, the less stringent the requirements are likely to be. These
recommendations cannot be substituted with the concept of clearance. Sometimes,
however, regulators are tempted to define some point in the end of the spectrum ofauthorization of discharges where there would not be any further requirement. This point
would define a concept that is subtly different than the concept of “exemption fromwithin”: it is the release of materials whose activity level is sufficiently low that any formof post-release regulatory involvement is not required in order to verify that the public isbeing sufficiently protected. In principle, the dose criteria developed for “exemption fromwithin” or “clearance” might equally be applied to this analogous concept. However, theequalization of these concepts has been a cause of confusion and therefore is notrecommended. For instance, it has been argued that the use of the clearance concept
could be misused for promoting the dilution of discharges in order to circumvent
regulatory control.
(62) The term clearance has also been used in legal texts as equivalent to the lower
boundary for the definition of radioactive waste. Materials, for which no future use isforeseen with activity levels above clearance levels, would be regarded as radioactive
waste; whereas, if their activity levels are at or below clearance levels, they would not be
regarded as being radioactive for regulatory purposes. Again, this was not the intended
use of the term. The legal definition of radioactive waste is a very complex process thatinvolves other type of considerations than those used for exemption from within.
Within this conundrum of usages, which seem equivalent but are subtly different(63)
and at times incorrect, the concept of clearance levels was established in the BSS as“values, established by the Regulatory Authority and expressed in terms of activity
concentrations and/or total activity, at or below which sources of radiation may bereleased from regulatory control” 45 . A vast range of clearance level was, and continues
to be, developed and is available for a number of materials 46 .
(64) There have been some discussions as to whether one set of radionuclide-specificvalues should be used to allow both exemption of materials to be regulated and clearanceof materials already regulated. While the activity levels applied to the application ofregulatory requirements (exemption) might be different from those applied the releasefrom regulatory requirements (clearance), because, for instance, the imposition ofregulatory requirements on materials may require more regulatory resources than are
freed by releasing materials from those requirements (clearance), such an approach has
the advantage of simplicity; one set of values would be easy to apply and could beinterpreted as a definition of a radioactive material, including radioactive waste, forregulatory purposes. There are, however, counter arguments. The values for clearance arebeing derived on the basis of different assumptions and sometimes for a different purpose
than those derived for exemption. A consequence of choosing one set of values is likely
45

See [IAEA 1997], glosary.
Within the European Union, the Article 31 Group made recommendations on clearance levels for a number of importantradionuclides in metals from the dismantling of nuclear installations. The IAEA has developed clearance levels for release ofradioactive materials from medicine, industry and research and is also developing clearance levels for general application to any solidmaterial.

46

to be selection of the lowest of those available. Nevertheless, there may be a case forchoosing one set of values for clearance levels: a plethora of levels, each specific to amaterial or industry, will lead to confusion. Another tempting possibility was to use a
specified fraction of the established exemption levels as a generic clearance level.
(65) The Commission has not used the term ‘clearance’ in its recommendations, interalia because the term has caused so much confusion. However, because of the overlap
between the concepts of ‘exempt source’ and ‘cleared source’, and the resulting
possibility of further confusion and imprecision, the Commission does not intend torecommend unilaterally the discontinuation of the use of the term ‘clearance’, as thisrecommendation will be insufficient to solve the problems with the term. It will be
unreasonable to expect the word clearance to disappear from usage, because it is too
entrenched in professional parlance. The Commission also realises that it is impossible toprevent colloquial use of a term, especially when it has gained a foothold –as in the caseof ‘clearance’. However, the Commission notes that it may be necessary to develop
separate and distinct definition of these concepts. It thus notes the regulatory problems
caused by the equivocal use of the term clearance and strongly recommends that its
imprecise use be discouraged. This can be done by refining the definitions used inregulatory and legal instruments, for instance reaffirming that exemption of a practice ora source refers to the waiving of requirements within the scope of regulatory control,
whereas clearance of materials refers to relinquishing all regulatory control of thosematerials, in the sense of terminating any requirements that applied to the person
previously responsible for them. Any other associated meanings for clearance should be
subsumed within the concept of exemption from within in its sense of relinquishing
control.
(66) The discussion above reinforces the Commission’s conviction that it is not
appropriate to define a ‘conditional clearance’ – another unfortunate concept that has
been used elsewhere. There is either clearance proper, where criteria for relinquishing
control must be met in the understanding that there cannot subsequent restrictions, orauthorized release of radioactive materials into the environment, where regulations might
be applied to the method of release, the monitoring on its effects on the environment, etc.;
but conditional clearance, requiring conditions to be met following release, is unfeasible.
5.5. Exemption in Interventional Situations(67) The report uses the term exemption also for intervention. This is a new use of theterm, as up to now it has been used primarily for exemption from requirements forpractices (except its use in the context of intervention exemption levels for commodities
in international trade). The concept of exemption within the context of interventions
presents a particular challenge. Interventions may or may not be subject to the formal
system of radiological protection regulations and they are usually undertaken by ad hocorganizations rather than by legal persons that apply for a registrations or license. Thernotion of exemption, therefore, is more subtle in this case: it is not exempting a legal
person from regulatory requirements such as registration or licensing but rather providing
criteria for releasing those ad hoc organizations from intervening. In addition, in the caseof practices, it is expected that there will be an increase of exposure due to theintroduction of the practice and it is relatively straightforward to see that when the
expected increase is sufficiently low the source causing the increase may be exemptedfrom regulations because regulating such a low doses is not warranted (see Figure 1).
Conversely, in the case of interventions there is no increase of exposure as result of theintervention but on the contrary a reduction in exposure. If there is an interventionalsituation, such as an extant situation of very high background or a post-accident situation,
the crucial radiological protection decisions will be (i) whether it is justifiable tointervene, and (ii) if so, how much the doses have to be reduced. Therefore, the conceptof exemption here does not address the issue of whether or not an increase in exposure islarge enough to warrant regulations but rather whether or not an existing exposure is low
enough for considering intervention unjustified under any circumstance. It then become
clear that while the principle of exemption for practices can equate to low additionaldose, such as the 10 μSv in a year criterion, the principle would be inapplicable tointerventional situations where the issue is not the exemption from control of anprospective additional exposure but of an existing total exposure.
(68) It should also be noted that there is a subtle but significance difference between
interventional situations following an emergency and an extant situation of highbackground. In the first, which is described in Figure 3, there is a previous backgroundlevel that is commonly used as a reference by those affected. In the second situation
described in Figure 4, this is not the case. This difference is usually responsible of adichotomous use of exemption for these two situations. There is a perceived difference inthe selection of an intervention level between an emergency situation and the case oflong-term extant exposure situations, such as those involving high background. In thecase of emergency there is a previous background level (prior to the emergency) that
becomes a reference to those affected, whereas in the latter situation, this is not the case.

Dose level after emergency-Δ
Δ
Exemption criterion
Backgrounddose level
time

Emergency

Intervention(Δ=Expected dose(-Δ=Expected dose reduction
attributable to the emergency) attributable to the intervention)

Figure 3

Extant dose level-Δ

Exemption criterion
time

Intervention(-Δ=Expected dose reduction
attributable to the intervention)

Figure 4

(69) Following the Commission’s Principles for Intervention for Protection of the
Public in a Radiological Emergency [ICRP, 1991b], the BSS established requirements fordose levels at which intervention is expected to be undertaken under any circumstances(see [IAEA 1999], section 3 and Schedule IV) and guidelines for intervention levels andaction levels in emergency exposure situations (see [IAEA 1999], Schedule V). It alsoestablished guidelines for action levels in chronic exposure situations –mainly to radon(see [IAEA 1999], Schedule VI). The requirements include the establishment ofintervention levels and action levels, expressed in terms of avertable dose (i.e. aprotective action is indicated if the dose that can be averted is greater than thecorresponding intervention level (see [IAEA 1999, Schedule V, V-1) 47 . These concepts
of intervention and action levels could possibly be considered to be ‘de facto’ exemption
criteria, because they imply that protective actions are not required below these levels.
Here, it is emphasized again, the concept of exemption does not address the issue of
whether an increase in exposure is large enough to warrant regulation but rather whether
an existing exposure is low enough for considering intervention to be unjustified under
any circumstances.
(70) The Commission addressed again the issue of intervention in its Publication 82 on
the Protection of the Public in Situations of Prolonged Radiation Exposure [ICRP 1999].
There, the Commission introduced the concept of ‘generic reference levels’ for dealing
with these situations and indicated that a total annual dose towards 100 mSv will almost
always justify intervention. Below a total annual dose of around 10 mSv intervention is
not likely to be justified, although protective actions to reduce a dominant component of
the annual dose are still optional below this level and might be justifiable. The
Commission warned that these recommendations should be interpreted with caution andregulatory bodies wishing to establish action levels for these purposes should carefullybalance the consequences of the intervention against the benefit in terms of improved
radiation protection.
(71) In the same Publication 82 the Commission notes that challenging situations ofprolonged exposure include those where high levels of natural background radiation arepresent and where the exposure is controllable. One such situation is the presence ofelevated ambient indoor levels of Rn-222. In its Publication 65, the Commission provides
recommendations for controlling prolonged exposure to Rn-222 in dwellings andworkplaces. Another case is the presence of natural gamma-emitting radionuclides inbuilding materials, where the Commission recommends that ‘Concerned national
authorities and, as appropriate, relevant international organisations should derivestandardised intervention exemption levels for activity concentrations of specificradionuclides in building materials, taking into account the recommendations forcommodities containing radioactive substances presented in this report’. Both of thesesituations presents a particular challenge for defining regulatory control. They will be treatedseparately in Chapter 6.

(72) The Commission’s sole specific recommendation on exemption levels forinterventional situations relates to intervention for trade in commodities –a topic that will47

The concepts and requirements for intervention were developed further in GS-R-2.

also be discussed in detail in Chapter 6. A generic intervention exemption level of around
1 mSv is recommended for the individual annual dose expected from a dominant type ofcommodity amenable to intervention, such as some building materials. The Commission
also recommended that on the basis of this recommendation, concerned national relevantinternational organizations should derive generic, and radionuclide-specific, intervention
exemption levels for individual commodities, in particular for specific building materials.
(73) In the absence of specific recommendations from the Commission, national andinternational standards have been generally mute on the important issue of regulatory
criteria for exemption in interventional situations. While there have been someinternational agreements established for intervention, particularly in the case of trade ofcommodities, they do not satisfy the need for internationally recognized exemption levels
for interventional situations.
(74) The Commission now wishes to extend its recommendations on exemption forcommodities to other interventional situations. The Commission believes that an annual
dose of around 1mSv is the lower bound for selection of action levels for interventions
and that, therefore, this level would function as a de facto exemption level for thesecircumstances of exposure. As in its previous recommendations on interventions, theCommission wishes to issue a number of warnings. On the one hand, in some situations,particularly in emergency situations, protective actions to reduce a dominant componentof the annual dose are still optional below the exemption level of 1mSv in a year andmight be justifiable. On the other hand, the value of 1 mSv in a year should not be taken
as an automatic trigger for consideration of action levels, as this level can probe
impractical for intervening in some specific situations such as radon in dwellings andworkplaces. In sum, the exemption level must be chosen with caution and regulatory bodies
wishing to establish action levels at these low-dose levels should carefully balance theconsequences of the intervention against the benefit in terms of improved radiation protection.

5.6. Outlook: The Use of Exemption(75) As indicated at the beginning of this Chapter, the Commission first introduced theconcept of exemption mainly for use within the context of practices. In fact it was
introduced fundamentally for exempting a priori from regulatory control practices
involving limited amounts of ‘artificial’ radioactive materials. The basic quantitative
principles of exemption, including a principle of low individual risk, were developed
within this context. The individual principle became a 10 μSv in a year criterion andapplied to the exemption of practices. The concept was then extended to the exemption aposteriori of radioactive materials already regulated but for which regulation was nolonger warranted and therefore could be cleared from the regulatory requirements. The
10 μSv in a year criterion was applied to the clearance concept, this time taking accountof the possibility of bulk amounts of materials to be cleared.
(76) The Commission considers however that the exemption principle of insignificanceof individual risk has been distorted into a principle of trivial dose through what seems aninflexible 10 μSv in a year criterion. The Commission underlines that the principle isbroader and refers to unwarranted control due to the insignificance of risk that may
include but is not limited to triviality of dose. Moreover, the position proposed now by
the Commission is that the criterion for deciding whether or not regulatory controls are
warranted has multiple attributes and is situation specific. Namely, it is not determined bydose alone but also includes societal factors involved in determining whether or not it iswarranted to control certain exposure situations. So it should not be surprising thatdifferent situations may lead to different dose criteria for defining whether or not
regulatory control is warranted. For situations involving naturally occurring radioactive
materials and for interventional situations, a generic intervention level of around 1mSv ina year seems to be more appropriate.
(77) The large difference between the dose criteria for exempting practices involving
artificial radionuclides and those for exempting naturally occurring radioactive materials
and interventional situations requires comment because it may attract criticism. Firstly, it
should be recalled that the 10 μSv in a year criterion used for practices involving artificial
radionuclides represents the average predicted value within an extended distribution ofdoses. For natural radionuclides the distribution is extremely narrow and in the case ofinterventional situations the exposures already exist, they are not predicted, and therefore
the distribution should be small. However, it can still be argued that a dose is a dose andthat the risk to humans incurring such a dose is the same whether the radiation comesfrom a practice or from another situation. The basic rationale would be that it is themagnitude of the dose to a person that is significant, not its origin. This obvious factobscures a false premise: that standards of safety should be based on risk (i.e. on
individual dose) alone. For instance, the question of whether intervention is justified, andhow far to reduce the dose in an intervention, includes consideration of net benefit inparticular situations. The Commission has indicated that the ‘need, form, scale, andduration of protective actions should be determined on a case-by-case basis, following
the principles of justification of intervention and optimisation of the protective actions,rather than through pre-selected individual dose restrictions’.
(78) The Commission generally endorses the use of exemption levels expressed as
activity or activity concentration values, but it also wishes to underline such levels are notdirectly applicable to situations where the radioactivity is present on the surface area.
This suggests an apparent need for additional exemption values for surface contaminatedmaterials in bulk quantities (and even territories) in terms of activity per unit area. The
Commission recommends that the international agreements reached on exemption could
be extended to cover these situations.
(79) The situations for exemption described in this Chapter are generic in nature, andspecific situations may need particular considerations. Behind all the discussion on theuse of exemption is the concept of doing what is appropriate according to thecircumstances – a graded approach related to the degree of controllability of exposuresand a form of optimization of protection. The commonly accepted 10μSv in a year
criterion for ‘artificial’ practices is in fact at one end of the scale; the suggested 1 mSv ina year criterion for natural radionuclides and for interventions is at the other end. But theyshould not be seen as unique points but rather as indicating a region within whichexemption might be applied. If exemption is the best approach, then it should be used,irrespective of the level of average individual dose. Indeed, if the legislative approach issuch that every radiation exposure should be included a priori in radiological protection
regulations and there is only the possibility of case-by-case exemption, then a dosimetricboundary cannot be the only criterion for exemption.
6. CONSIDERATION OF SOME SPECIFIC SITUATIONS
6.1 Low-energy or – intensity Adventitious Radiation(80) A large variety of apparatuses and devices generate very low-energy ionizing
radiation (usually as X-rays) as an unwanted by-product. These include electron
microscopes, electron beam welders, cathode-ray tubes, high-voltage electronic rectifiersand voltage regulators, vacuum switches, vacuum capacitors, magnetrons, klystrons,
transmitting tubes, television and image tubes and other electronic devices where
electrically charged particles are accelerated or decelerated. This process generates
bremsstrahlung radiation, i.e., the electromagnetic radiation that is generated by theacceleration or deceleration of the charged particle on passing through the electric andmagnetic fields or on interaction with the atoms of surrounding materials. In addition
there are numerous consumer products, such as television sets, which generateadventitious ionizing radiation that is not of very low energy but that arise at relatively
low intensities. In these situations it is debatable whether radiological protection controls
are warranted or whether it is more convenient to exempt these apparatuses and devices
from those controls albeit subject to some criteria.
(81) Years ago, in ICRP Publication 3 [ICRP, 1960], the Commission addressed theissue of low-energy and low-intensity radiation emitted by devices and apparatuses as an
unwanted by-product 48 . In ICRP Publication 15 [ICRP 1970], the issue was discussed
again 49 . At the time, the Commission recognised implicitly that apparatuses emitting
ionizing radiation with energies lower than 5 keV and television sets delivering dose rates
near the external surface lower that around 5 μSv per hour did not warrant radiation
protection control. More recently, the Commission reaffirmed again with added precision
48

In ICRP Publication 3, paragraphs 115 and suc., the Commission recommended that: “All equipment in which electrons areaccelerated to an energy in excess of 5 keV shall be regarded as a potential source of ionizing radiations. Such equipment, e.g.
electron microscopes, cathode-ray tubes, high-voltage electronic rectifiers, transmitting valves, television and image tubes shall be soconstructed, installed and operated, as to provide adequate protection. Whenever practicable, such items of equipment shall beshielded and provided with interlocks so as to ensure that the places where they are used can be regarded as being outside "controlledareas"…Particular attention is drawn to the hazards which may arise during the manufacture, testing and repair of all such
equipment. The dose-rate at any readily accessible point 5 cm from the surface of any [television] set used in the home or place where
the public is likely to be in close proximity shall not exceed 0.5 mr/h under normal operating conditions. All other televisionequipment such as those used for projection purposes or in closed-circuit applications shall be shielded and operated in accordancewith [the Commission’s recommendations]”.
49
In ICRP Publication 15, paragraphs 288 and suc., the Commission addressed again the issue and recommended that: “Items ofequipment in which electrons are accelerated to an energy in excess of 5 keV should be regarded as potential sources of ionizing
radiations, and appropriate protection measures should be taken unless radiation monitoring or experience with similar equipment
indicates them to be unnecessary. Such items as electron microscopes, electron beam welders, cathode-ray tubes, high-voltage
electronic rectifiers and voltage regulators, vacuum switches, vacuum capacitors, magnetrons, klystrons, transmitting tubes, televisionand image tubes are all potential sources of x rays; they should be installed, operated, and, where appropriate, constructed, so as toprovide adequate protection for all persons. Attention should be paid to persons who test, service and use such equipment, as well as
to members of the public if the equipment is installed in accessible places….The exposure rate at any position 5 cm from any outersurface of domestic-type television sets and of television equipment used for projection purposes, closed-circuit applications and thelike shall not exceed 0.5 mR/h ...”.

its previous recommendations. In ICRP Publication 36 [ICRP, 1982], the Commission
indicated that: “It is convenient to distinguish apparatuses that produce x rays by designfrom electrical devices that are sources of unwanted x rays. The former include x-ray sets
for analysis, radiography and irradiation. The latter include a number of low-pressurehigh-voltage devices in which accelerated electrons impinge on matter, examples being
discharge tubes, cathode-ray tubes, microwave oscillators and amplifiers, as well as
electron microscopes. External irradiation is the main hazard in both cases and it can beparticularly serious for unshielded equipment…It is recommended that the doseequivalent rate 5 cm from the surface of the enclosure should not exceed 5 μSv h-1 at the
maximum operating conditions of the set. This may be achieved by shielding in themanner described elsewhere by the Commission… Any device in which electrons areaccelerated by a potential difference greater than 5 kV should be regarded as a possible
source of unwanted x rays. Such sources should therefore be carefully examined, andwhen required the recommendations made [by the Commission] for x-ray apparatus
should be applied with any necessary adaptations.” 50(82) These recommendations were, in essence, adopted in international standards as
exemption criteria. The BSS establish that, under the general criteria for exemption, “thefollowing sources within practices are automatically exempted without further
consideration from the requirements of the [BSS], including those for notification,
registration or licensing:… any electronic tube, such as a cathode ray tube for the
display of visual images, provided that they do not cause in normal operating conditions
an ambient dose equivalent rate or a directional dose equivalent rate, as appropriate,exceeding 1 μSv h-1 at a distance of 0.1 m from any accessible surface of the apparatus or
the maximum energy of the radiation produced is no greater than 5 keV.” 51 These criteria
were naturally extended to apparatuses and devices containing radioactive substances nototherwise exempted, provided that: they were of a type approved by the Regulatory
Authority, the radioactive substances were in the form of sealed sources that effectively
prevent any contact with radioactive substances or their leakage, and in normal operating
conditions they would not cause an ambient dose equivalent rate or a directional dose
equivalent rate, as appropriate, exceeding around 1 μSv h-1 at a distance of 0.1 m fromany accessible surface of the apparatus.
(83) The Commission continues to reaffirm that apparatuses and devices that generateadventitious ionizing radiation under the conditions described in the current international
standards should be exempted from radiological protection controls.
6.2. Cosmic Rays

(84) In ICRP Publication 60 [ICRP, 1991], the Commission recommended that cosmic
rays at the earth’s surface should be excluded from regulations. The recommendation was
followed by international standards, which identified exposure ‘from cosmic radiation at

50
51

ICRP Publication 36, paragraphs 61, 62 and 67.
See BSS, Schedule 1, I-4 (b)the surface of the earth’ as an example of excluded exposures 52 . In this report, theCommission confirms this position.
(85) The international approach to exposures to cosmic rays above the earth’s surface
has been more ambiguous. The most common situation is added exposure of passengers
and aircrew while flying; the exceptional situation is exposure of astronauts in spaceflights. The typical radiation level at flying altitude is around 5μSv h-1 for flights overpolar latitudes and around half that on equatorial flights. With these levels of exposure itis estimated that frequent flyers and crew would incur an annual mean doses of 4-5 mSv
to 1-2 mSv depending whether they are long-haul or short-haul [Maxwell 2006]. The
levels of exposure in space are very high and irregular.
(86) The regulatory approach to these cosmic ray exposure situations has been uneven.
In ICRP Publication 60 [ICRP, 1991], the Commission recommended that exposures tocosmic rays be part of occupational exposure in the operation of jet aircraft and spaceflight. Thus, it recommended that all flying individuals who are likely to cross the 1 mSv
threshold should be classified as occupationally exposed. The Commission subsequently
modified this recommendation in ICRP Publication 75 [ICRP, 1997], indicating that it is
not necessary to treat the exposure of frequent-flyer business passengers as
occupationally exposed for the purpose of control –essentially only aircrew should beconsidered. At that time, the Commission already noted that the only practical regulatory
measures were controlling flying time and route selection. Some national regulations
require monitoring of aircrew exposures and others set a limit of 6 mSv above which theirwork schedule must be adjusted, but they are generally mute for non-crew flyers.
(87) Regulation of cosmic ray exposure in air travel would necessitate importantinterferences, such as intrusion in life style and, for aircraft operation, restriction of theflying time and rostering of exposed people. These types of disruptions may possibly beconsidered of an infeasible nature. Flying time of aircrew and frequent flyers is alreadysubject to control, among other motives for reasons of fatigue. Moreover, for reasons
other than radiation exposure, it is common practice to transfer pregnant aircrew andbusiness flyers to duties that do not require flying, which should ensure adequate
protection of the foetus in pregnant flyers. The Commission considers, therefore, that
there seems to be no obvious reason to introduce regulatory controls for common
exposure situations to cosmic rays above the earth surface but recognizes that national
authorities may wish to monitor these situations until more information becomes
available. Exceptional cases of cosmic ray exposures, such as exposure in space travel,
where doses may be significant and some type of control warranted, should be dealt withseparately taking into account the special type of situations that can give rise to this typeof exposure.
(88) The Commission, in summary, continues to recommend that cosmic radiation at
ground level need not be included in radiological protection regulations and may
therefore be considered by legislators for exclusion from relevant legislation. In addition,
exposure to cosmic rays at altitudes above ground level may be considered as a candidate
52

See BSS, footnote 2

for either exclusion from legislation or generic exemption from most regulatory
requirements, depending on the legislative system and national arrangements in place.
6.3. Use of Materials Containing Radionuclides of Natural Origin3(89) As discussed in Section 3, radiological protection regulations have until now
focused largely, if not exclusively, on exposures from human endeavours making use of
artificial radiation sources. The concept of exemption in particular was mainly developed
for those situations. Industrial activities involving bulk quantities of materials containing
radionuclides of natural origin have been regulated unevenly. Some of these industries,
such as the mining and milling of uranium and thorium, have generally been regulatedwith the systems used for artificial sources. Conversely, in others of these industries thepresence of radiation exposure has been largely ignored. Examples include: theproduction of mineral sand products, phosphoric acid from phosphate rock, and somemetals (e.g., tin); the oil industry, with its sub-product of radioactive scales; the use ofnatural building materials containing natural radionuclides; and, surprisingly, thegeneration of non-nuclear energy from combustibles such as coal that may leave
radioactive ashes as a radioactive residue of environmental significance. It should be
noted that the presence of radioactivity in these types of industry is adventitious, i.e.,
incidental to the use to which the material is being put.
(90) The Commission’s recommendations strengthened the idea that, in principle, suchindustrial activities may be candidates for regulation. In some cases, the radiation doses
attributable to these activities may be similar in magnitude to those attributable to normal
operations of nuclear installations. Moreover, these industries may produce radioactive
byproducts, waste and residues containing higher levels of radioactivity than thosecurrently considered appropriate for exemption.
(91) These situations present differences from practices involving artificial
radionuclides where the concept of dose triviality has mainly been used to decide on theextent of regulatory involvement. The industries and processes have often been operating
for many years and may predate systems of radiological protection that were introduced,
at least initially, for protection against artificial radionuclides. The possibility ofsignificant changes in exposure rates, in particular, an increase, may be automaticallylimited by a number of factors including plant throughput, the natural upper bound on theactivity concentration of the raw material, and conventional occupational standards
controlling, for instance, the concentrations of airborne dusts.
(92) One approach for dealing with radiological protection regulations for theseindustries would be to exclude some level of naturally radioactive materials from
regulation on the basis of unamenability to control. Another approach follows from adecision that specified industries, based on the nature of the process or the activity
concentration of the material that they use or produce, should be subject to regulation, i.e.
that they constitute a practice proper in the context of the Commission’s system ofprotection. In such cases, a provision for generic exemption from regulatory requirements
may be useful, but the conditions for such exemption would need to be defined on thebasis that no control is the optimum radiological protection solution rather than theconcept of triviality of additional individual dose, i.e., the 10 μSv in a year criterion thatis used for exemption of ‘artificial’ practices. In cases where regulation is considerednecessary, a graded approach should be used, taking account of the potential risks topeople. For example, where the risks due to radiation are low and where the source orpractice is inherently safe, a notification by the operator or owner to the regulatory bodythat the practice exists might be sufficient.
(93) In ICRP Publication 75 [ICRP, 1997], the Commission provided some guidanceon exposure to naturally occurring radionuclides. Noting that levels of uranium-238 andthorium-232 in the environment are generally of the order of 40 Bq kg-1 with a variationof an order of magnitude or so higher, the Commission felt that it would be reasonable toconsider that such materials might be excluded from control. It recommended that
regulatory agencies choose activity concentrations of parent radionuclides within therange of 1000-10000 Bq kg-1 to determine whether the exposures from these materials
should be subjected to regulatory control.
(94) As discussed before, the Commission feels that national regulators may profit
from the recent international agreements on radiological criteria on commodities. Thus,
they might consider establishing either exclusion levels or generic exemption levels fornaturally occurring non-edible materials of around 1000 Bq kg-1 for materials containing
radionuclides from the primordial chains and of around 10000 Bq kg-1 for materials
containing potassium-40. Industries handling naturally occurring radioactive materials
with activities (in all the processes) not higher than these values could be either excludedby the legislator from the radiological protection legislation or exempted by the regulator
from the regulatory requirements of notification and authorization. It should be noted thatsuch levels would be coherent with the 1mSv in a year criterion discussed before. An
exception to these generic criteria should be made for naturally occurring radioactive
materials that are used as building materials, an issue that is discussed in the following
section.
(95) Exclusion or generic exemption of situations involving naturally occurring
radioactive material on the basis of activity concentration (1000 or 10 000 Bq·kg-1, as
appropriate), while being a useful approach for eliminating a large number of practices
from unnecessary regulation, will not in itself identify all situations for which regulatory
control is not warranted. For some practices involving materials with activity
concentrations exceeding these values, even by large amounts, the optimum regulatory
option may still be not to apply regulatory requirements to the legal person responsible
for the material. In situations where the activity concentration values are exceeded,
therefore, the regulatory body, before automatically imposing regulatory requirements,
needs to decide whether to exempt on a case-by-case basis. The most appropriate basis
for such a decision would be an approach based on dose. From the foregoing discussion,
it is evident that a dose of 1 mSv per annum could serve as a suitable criterion for case bycase exemption in such situations (and has indeed already received a substantial degree ofinternational acceptance), especially as this also happens to be the maximum dose likely

to be received as a consequence of the above-mentioned activity concentration values for
exclusion or generic exemption [IAEA, 2004 (b)].
6.3.1. Building Materials(96) The use of building materials rich in gamma-emitting primordial radionuclides
may cause substantial exposures to those inhabiting dwellings built with these products.
In many parts of world, this type of building material has been used over generations. The
main products of concern are building stones, concrete, plaster and industrial by-products
and residues used as ballast in building materials. The background levels in rocks fromthe 238U and 232Th series and 40K make similar contributions to the externally incident
gamma radiation as the median concentrations of 238U, 232Th and 40K in the earth’s crust,and are typically around 35, 30 and 400 Bq/kg respectively. Typical activity
concentrations in other building material such as concrete are also relatively close to
those of the earth’s crust with values of about 40, 30, and 400 for 226Ra 53 , 232Th and 40K
respectively [EU 1999].
(97) Natural building stones are made from different types of material. The
radionuclide content is lowest in basic rocks of magmatic origin. Also marbles, limestone
and various detrital sedimentary rocks contain only small amounts of naturalradionuclides. Higher concentrations are generally found in acid magmatic rocks,
especially in late-magmatic granites, and in some metamorphic rocks. The use of thesebuilding materials is mostly used for floors and therefore assessment of exposure should
be based on scenarios where the material is used in a typical way.
(98) Concrete is one of the most commonly used building materials. The variation ofnatural radionuclide concentrations in concrete depends on ballast materials andadditives. Commonly used ballast materials are sand, gravel, macadam and shingle,
which normally do not enhance the radioactive content of the concrete. There are,however, also other ballast materials used, such as pumice stone with a high 226Ra
concentration, and granite with a high 40K concentration, and these ballast materials do
enhance the radioactive content of the concrete. Aerated, or lightweight, concrete consists
mainly of the same materials as ordinary concrete, but a small quantity of aluminum
powder is added in order to create the cell structure in the final product. Alum-shale,
which has been used in the past as ballast material in ordinary and aerated concrete, has aparticularly high 226Ra concentration (up to 4500 Bq/kg).
(99) The use of industrial by-products and residues as ballast for building material isincreasing for economical and environmental reasons. Most commonly used materials are
fly-ash (from coal and peat burning), blast furnace slag and phosphogypsum. Thesematerials may have enhanced concentrations of natural radionuclides, because ofconcentration during the manufacturing process. For instance, coal ash from coal-fired
power stations (both, fly ash and bottom ash combined), which is radioactive because of
the presence of primordial radionuclides in the coal, has been used widely around the53

In the uranium-238 series, the decay chain segment starting from radium-226 is radiologically the most important and, therefore,
reference is often made to radium instead of uranium.

world. More than 280 million tonnes of coal ash are produced annually, of which about
40 million tonnes are used in the production of bricks and cement and a great deal as
floor-materials stabilizer and asphalt mix. Some large users of coal ash as fillingmaterials are not included in these figures: for instance, it is reported that in China, in
1996, when the raw coal output was about 1400 million tonnes, the production of coal ash
amounted 329.6 million tonnes of which 141 million tonnes were used in the productionof building materials including cement [Pan 1999].
(100) Although the radiation doses attributable to the use of materials containing
radionuclides of natural origin3in building construction are not well known, the averageworldwide exposure for this cause has been estimated to be around 0.4 mSv/y, with atypical range of 0.3-0.6 mSv/y [UNSCEAR 2000], while it is recognised that residents
can incur annual doses of up to several mSv. Annual doses approaching 10 mSv havebeen reported in houses in Europe with outside walls containing uraniferous alum shale
and also coal slag. In at least one major Asian city, exposures due to the use in house
construction of shine-bottom deposits collected from areas through which undergroundwater from hot springs in travertine is flowing is reported to deliver annual doses up to
well above 100 mSv.
(101) The Commission would therefore wish to take some exception on the suggested
exemption levels for controlling naturally occurring radioactive material if they can beused as a building product. It recommends that building components containing naturally
occurring radioactive materials should not be excluded from the legislation nor granted ageneric exemption without a careful analysis of the radiological implications of suchdecision. The issue has been recently discussed at an international consultancy to draft aninternational safety guide [IAEA 2005]. The consultancy, comprising of experts from anumber of countries that are deeply involved in this matter, concluded that regulatory
authorities should ensure that annual doses are restricted to a few mSv in the worst-casescenarios. The internationally agreed exemption levels for radionuclides in non-edible
commodities (in IAEA Safety Guide RS-G-1.7) taken individually would meet such
criteria 54 , provided that the following activity concentration equation is used to ensurethat the annual dose criteria is met:
CK
10 Bq / g

+

C Ra
CTh
+
≤1
1Bq / g 1Bq / g

where CK, CRa and CTh are the concentrations in Bq/g of potassium-40, radium-226 andthorium-232[55]. However it is warned that, in applying this condition, the regulatory
authority should consider whether additional restrictions need to be placed on the activity
concentration of Ra-226 in order to control the dose from radon 56 (see next section).
54
Although some situations especially in the case of building materials having a high concentration of several natural radionuclides(not restricted by [IAEA 2004b] may result in doses up to 15 mSv.
[55]
The proposed approach does not deviate significantly from the values in [EU 1999], in the case where activity concentrations
presented in the index are accepted independently. Fluctuations in dose calculation of the most stringent scenario are related to thesubtraction of background and redistribution of the fractions of the three radionuclides.
56
The exhalation rate of radon from building materials will be influenced not only by the physical characteristics of the material itself
but also by national building practices. As a general guideline, the indoor concentration of radon derived from building materials
should not exceed the national action level set for radon in indoor air in homes.

(102) The Commission is following with interest all these new developments on the
crucial issue of controlling building goods containing natural occurring radioactive
materials. It continues to encourage the collection of factual information of the levels of
exposure at dwellings built with this type of product. Given the information available, it
provisionally endorses the calculation of exemption levels on the base of a weighted
summation the activity concentrations of 226Ra, 232Th and 40K with a formula such as theinequality above.
6.4. Radon

6.4.1. A Significant Radiation Source(103) The naturally radioactive noble gas radon is ubiquitous in all terrestrial materials.
Three radioactive isotopes of radon occur naturally in the environment: radon-222, radon220 and radon-219. Radon-219 has a half-life of 4 seconds and is derived from thenatural radioactive series headed by uranium-235. Radon-220, more normally referred toas thoron, has a half-life of 55 seconds and is derived from the natural radioactive series
headed by thorium-232. Radon-222, more generally referred to as radon, has a half-lifeof 3.82 days and is derived from the natural radioactive series headed by uranium-238.
Because of its short half-life and the normally low concentrations of uranium-235 insoils, the radiation dose from exposure to radon-219 is negligible and therefore not ofradiological concern. The same applies to thoron, with the exception of situations wherebuildings are constructed using materials with a high concentration of thorium-232 (seeprevious section). Radon, because its half-life is long enough to allow it to accumulate in
the environment and as uranium-238 can be present in relatively high concentrations insoils, is potentially a source of significant radiation exposure. Radon atoms are released(by recoil when they decay) from the solid matrix of natural materials and migrate into
the air. They decay into isotopes of other elements, the atoms of which attach themselvesto the condensation nuclei and dust particles present in air.
(104) Confined spaces selected by humans as dwellings, especially those bound byradon-emitting materials and/or located on radon emitting ground, are prone to having
enhanced concentrations of radon in the air; examples range from the caves used byprimitive humans to the stone and brick dwellings of modern humans. The use of natural
gas for cooking has also enhanced exposure to radon in homes, because natural gas may
contain significant amounts of radon. More recently, the insulation of houses to improvethe efficiency of heating has exacerbated the problem. Extreme concentrations of radonand its progeny in buildings have been reported as locally occurring maximum values inseveral countries, with levels as high as 100,000 Bq/m3. These levels can cause exposures
up to two orders of magnitude higher than those in areas with ‘typically elevatedexposures’, leading to annual doses of up to several hundred millisieverts.
(105) While these extreme radon concentrations are in most cases being reduced byremediation, it is indisputable that high levels of radon can occur in dwellings andworkplaces making it a significant source of human exposure. In fact, UNSCEAR has

estimated that radon is the most important contributor to human exposure – which ismainly caused by inhalation of the short-lived decay products, and their subsequentdeposition along the walls of the various airways of the bronchial tree of the lungs[UNSCEAR, 2000]. Because of its significance, the Commission has given great
attention to the issue of human exposure to radon and provided detailed advice on
protection against radon exposure in ICRP Publication 65 [ICRP, 1993].
6.4.2. The Development of Recommendations on Radon(106) The underlying theme of the Commission’s recommendations on radon is thecontrollability of exposure. They identify the circumstances under which exposure toradon in workplaces may need to be subject to the Commission’s system of protection forpractices and where the need for action against exposure to radon in dwellings should beconsidered. Already in ICRP Publication 60 [ICRP, 1991], the Commission had
recommended the use of action levels for initiating intervention “…to help in deciding
when to require or advise remedial action in existing dwellings” 57 . In ICRP Publication
65 [ICRP, 1993], the Commission further refined the concept of action levels for radon in
dwellings and indicated that “an action level is needed to define workplaces…in whichintervention should be undertaken to reduce radon exposures” 58 , where such action level
will define “the workplaces in which the Commission’s system of protection for practices
should be applied to radon exposures, with other workplace not being subject to thissystem” [i.e., being exempted from it] 59 . Thus, the Commission recommended: “It seems
clear that some remedial measures against radon in dwellings are almost always justified
above a continued annual effective dose of 10 mSv. For simple remedial measures, asomewhat lower figure could be considered, but a reduction by a factor of five or ten
would reduce the action level to a value below the dose from natural backgroundsources. The choice of action level for annual effective dose is thus limited to the range ofabout 3-10 mSv. The Commission recommends that the action level should be set within
this range by the appropriate authorities. The corresponding rounded value of radon
concentration is about 200-600 Bq m-3, with an annual occupancy of 7000 hours and an
equilibrium factor of 0.4. Continuous domestic exposures at average concentrations of
200 Bq m-3 and 600 Bq m-3 would imply annual exposures [to radon gas of 1.4 MBq h m-3
and 4.2 MBq h m-3, respectively, and to radon progeny of 3.11 mJ h m-3 and 9.33 mJ h m3
, respectively]…Workers who are not regarded as being occupationally exposed toradiation are usually treated in the same way as members of the public. It is then logicalto adopt an action level for intervention in workplaces at the same level of effective doseas the action level for dwellings. The action levels for intervention in workplaces can bemost easily derived from the range of action levels for dwellings by multiplying by
7000/2000 (the ratio of the occupancy) and by 3.88/5.06 (the ratio of the dose conversion
coefficients). The resulting range (rounded) is 500-1500 Bq per m3. When selecting
action levels for dwellings and workplaces, authorities should choose values that are
similarly located within the two ranges. In some mines, the equilibrium factor may besignificantly different from 0.4. National authorities may then wish to use a different
57

ICRP Publication 60, paragraphs 216-218.
The Commission defined action level for radon as the concentration of radon at which intervention is recommended to reduce theexposure in a dwelling or workplace. (see ICRP Publication 65 – Definitions)59
ICRP Publication 65, paragraph 83
58

action level in terms of radon concentration in such mines.” 60 The international standards
generally followed these Commission recommendations and established that “Optimized
action levels relating to chronic exposure involving radon in dwellings should, in mostsituations, fall within a yearly average concentration of 200 to 600 Bq/m3 of 222Rn in
air… The action level for remedial action relating to chronic exposure situations
involving radon in workplaces is a yearly average concentration of 1000 Bq of 222Rn per
cubic meter of air” 61 . Since the Commission’s latest recommendations on radon, several
epidemiological studies have confirmed the risk of radon exposure even at relatively
moderate concentrations. These studied have generally validated the Commission
recommendations on protection against radon. However, UNSCEAR is currently
reassessing its estimates on radon [UNSCEAR, 2005]. The Commission is following theissue of protection to radon closely and eventually could revisit its recommendations andif justifiable suggest changes in the range of action levels. This may influence, but not
substantially, the quantitative recommendations on regulatory scope for radon describedhereinafter.
6.4.3. The Controllability of Radon Exposures(107) Exposure to radon is usually controllable and new isolation techniques have maderadon control even simpler. Impermeable barriers beneath the floor slab of dwellings
have been used to diminish radon entrance. Construction of a radon sump that could be
activated if radon levels are found is another common technique for controlling radon
concentration indoors. The incorporation of radon control requirements into nationalbuilding and construction codes is becoming a common practice.
(108) However, while the control of radon is normally straightforward, in practicesituations arise involving low radon concentrations that are less amenable to control. It is
not clear that any universal concentration value could be considered as indicating a level
below which control is unwarranted. Radon concentrations in dwellings and workplacesdiffer widely around the world, inter alia because of differences in geology and climate,in construction materials and techniques, and – significantly – in domestic customs. Thissituation makes difficult international harmonization of regulatory approaches fordefining amenability of control of radon, as it depends so much on local circumstances:
sometimes radon is easy to control, sometimes control is practically unfeasible. Perhaps
because of all these reasons the Commission did not address in the past explicitly theissue of whether exposure to radon below a given concentration has to be considered
unamenable to control, and therefore subject to exclusion from radiological protection
legislation.
6.4.4. Excluding Radon Exposures Situations(109) The Commission now considers that it would be convenient to define someconcentration value of radon below which the exposure could be internationallyconsidered to be excluded from legislation. While, as indicated above, this definition is
60
61

ICRP Publication 65, paragraphs 72, 73 and 86
See BSS, Schedule VInot simple, it is recalled that typical outdoor radon long-term average concentrations havebeen reported to be 1 to 100 Bq m-3 [UNSCEAR 1993]. Typical concentrations areseveral tens of Bq m-3, with an arithmetic mean of the worldwide distribution of 10 Bq
m-3 outdoors and 40 Bq m-3 indoors [UNSCEAR, 2000]. As for the case of cosmic rays at
ground level, it would seem to be impractical to consider controlling exposure to radon atthese normal ambient levels.
(110) Therefore, following a reasoning parallel to the case of cosmic rays at groundlevel, the Commission recommends that an activity concentration of radon below 40
Bq/m3 may be regarded as unamenable to control and could therefore be used as an
exclusion level specific for situations of ambient exposure to this radionuclide. This level
could therefore be considered for exclusion from legislation or, according to the nationalarrangements, granted a generic exemption from regulatory requirements.
6.4.5. Exempting Radon Exposure Situations(111) Once the legislator has established the levels of radon that are not excluded fromlegislation, it still remains for the regulator to decide whether it is warranted to control
radon exposure in a particular situation or whether it is more convenient to exempt thesituation from regulatory requirements. Again this would depend very much on local
situations including the applicable social and economic conditions. It will very muchdepend also on whether the situation is subject to regulatory action or not. If the radonsituation is not regulated, there is no identifiable person to whom the exemption may
apply. Many occupational exposure situations to radon are subject to regulations, e.g.
mining activities, but many others are not, for instance domestic workers in houses are
generally not subject to occupational radiological protection regulations even if the houseenvironment is rich in radon. Regulation of public exposure to radon is even more rare.
Few countries have enforced building codes where radon concentration is considered but
even this cannot be considered a radiological protection regulation per se as there is not aregistrant or licensee to whom exemption could apply.
(112) As indicated before, however, regulatory authorities are expected to select ‘actionlevels’, for both dwellings and workplaces, from ranges recommended by theCommission. At such action level the undertaking of remedial measures for radon in
dwellings and workplaces should be considered to be generically warranted. The lower
value in the range could be considered a de facto exemption level, because below thisvalue protective measures were not considered to be warranted in a generic sense.
(113) The case of Dwellings: The range of 200-600 Bq m-3 for selecting ‘action levels’
for radon in dwellings recommended in ICRP Publication 65 [ICRP, 1993] was adopted
in the BSS [IAEA 1996]. The upper-bound value of 600 Bq m-3 is expected to be used bynational authorities as an upper-bound for selecting an action level at which remedialaction should be taken under any circumstances. Conversely, the lower-bound value of
200 Bq m-3 defines the lower level for the national action level. Below this level therefore
any situation of exposure to radon in dwellings can be expected to be a candidate for a defacto exemption. Under the current standardized conversion factor this level would

Kommentar [AM2]: The text
is inconsistent throughout on theformat of units, should it be
Bq/m3 or Bq m-3 ?

correspond to an individual dose of few mSv per annum, a level compatible with the lmSv criterion suggested for naturally occurring radioactive material. It is emphasized thatthe level of 600 Bq m-3 is the international upper bound for the selection of an optimized
national rather than international action level. Thus, the national action level is expected
to be between 200 Bq m-3 and 600 Bq m-3, and national authorities may monitor to findhomes above the action level and eventually to require remedial actions. Below thenational action level the authorities are not expected to intervene. Thus the establishmentof a lower number has little practical significance, except that, depending of national
practice, an exclusion level of 40 Bq m-3 could be established to keep radon exposure
situations out from legislation and an international minimum exemption level of 200 Bq
m-3 could also be referenced as the lower level for which control deems to beinternationally warranted. This lower exemption number would become a de facto
exclusion level and would only be useful as an international reference. Therefore, there islittle practical use for levels lower than the national action level other that perhaps toscreen homes; but, it should be underlined that the exclusion concept is not related withscreening areas and a value of 40 Bq m-3 as a basis for screening would be impractical,
and that usually here are national criteria to determine 'radon prone' areas. Under theabove provisos, the Commission recommends, in addition to the exclusion level of 40 Bq
m-3, a minimum exemption level of 200 Bq m-3 for exposure situations to radon in
dwellings.
(114) The case of Workplaces: For radon in workplaces, the range recommended in
ICRP Publication 65 [ICRP, 1993] within which the national action level could beselected is 500-1500 Bq m-3. For any situation, the value of 1500 Bq m-3 recommended
by the Commission is an upper-bound for selecting an occupational action level forradon. Conversely, the lower-value of 500 Bq m-3, which corresponds to the same levelsof dose as the 200 Bq m-3 for dwellings, could be considered as a de facto exemption
level because below that level no protective actions are required. However, it is to be
noted that, in the interest of international harmonization of occupational safety standards,
a single value of 1000 Bq m-3 was established in the BSS. For the same reasons, theCommission considers that this internationally established value might be used globallyto define the action level for occupational exposure situations to radon. In fact, thisinternational action level of 1000 Bq m-3 serves interalia for a much needed globally
harmonized monitoring and record-keeping system. This is relevant for determining when
the occupational radiological protection requirements apply - i.e. what is actually
included within the system of regulatory control. Thus, in international practice theworkplace has to be monitored to find whether it is over 1000 Bq m-3. As in the case of
dwellings, below the national action level the authorities are not expected to intervene.
Thus the establishment of a lower number has little practical significance, except that,
depending of national practice, an exclusion level of 40 Bq m-3 could be established tokeep radon exposure situations out from legislation and an international minimum
exemption level of 500 Bq m-3 could also be referenced as the lower level for which
control deems to be internationally warranted. This lower exemption number would
become a de facto exclusion level and would only be useful as an international reference.
Under the above provisos, the Commission recommends, in addition to the exclusion

level of 40 Bq m-3, a minimum exemption level of 500 Bq m-3 for exposure situations toradon in underlying that the international standardized value is 1000 Bq m-3.
(115) In summary, depending on the diverse national legal and regulatory practices forcontrolling radon, either the Commission’s recommended exclusion level of 40 Bq m-3
and minimum exemption levels of 200 Bq m-3 (dwellings) and 500 Bq m-3 (workplace)are used (with action levels being chosen at some value equal to or higher than the
exemption levels), or the national action levels or the internationally standarizedoccupational action level of 1000 Bq m-3 are treated as de facto exclusion levels or
generic exemption levels.
6.5. Commodities(116) Produce that can generally be used or consumed by the public, such as foodstuffs,
building materials, as well as other consumer products, can have incorporated radioactive
materials. How to regulate these products, which would be generally termed commodities
in this report, has become an international challenge. The Commission considered theissue of regulating commodities in ICRP Publication 60 [ICRP, 1991]. 62(117) Usually, natural radionuclides are present in commodities as a result of naturalprocesses and deliver exposures that are essentially unamenable to control. However,radionuclides from both natural and artificial origins may also be present in commodities
as a direct result of human activities. For instance, they may have been incorporated as aresult of the operation of practices, or as result of radioactive residues from thedecommissioning of the practice or, from exempted materials that are cleared forrecycling and released into the market. The levels of radionuclides in commodities
attributable to the operation of practices should conceptually be controlled through theprinciples of the system of radiological protection for practices, including the criteria for
exemption of practices. However, as described previously, radionuclides may also be
incorporated into commodities from an environment with a high contect of naturalradionuclides or which is contaminated with radioactive residues from past activities or
events, or even from accidents. This is the more pervasive process of incorporation ofradioactivity into commodities and the method of control should be through the system ofradiological protection for intervention. But the Commission’s system of radiologicalprotection for practices and interventions may be unsuitable in practice to help in solving
practical situations of radionuclides in commodities: in fact, mainly due to theglobalisation of markets, intervention exemption levels of radionuclides in commodities
cannot be established on a case-by-case basis; rather, they need to be standardised.
(118) In ICRP Publication 82 [ICRP, 1999], the Commission recommended,…“ageneric intervention exemption level of around 1 mSv…for the [maximum] individual62
In ICRP Publication 60, paragraph 284, the Commission stated that: ‘To avoid unnecessary restrictions in international trade,
especially in foodstuffs, it may be necessary, in this context, to apply derived intervention levels [that] indicate a line of demarcation
between freely permitted exports or imports and those that should be the subject of special decisions. Any restrictions applied to goods
below the intervention levels, better called intervention exemption levels for this purpose, should be regarded as artificial barriers totrade. Trade in materials above an intervention exemption level should not automatically be prohibited, but such materials might besubject to temporary controls. Intervention exemption levels used in this way in international trade should not necessarily have thesame quantitative values as the intervention levels used for initiating action in other circumstances.’annual dose expected from a dominant type of commodity amenable to intervention, suchas some building materials...”. The Commission also stated that “concerned national
and, as appropriate, relevant international organizations should derive generic, andradionuclide-specific, intervention exemption levels for individual commodities.” The
Commission however cautioned, “The recommended generic intervention exemption
level should be used with care. For instance, there are commodities that are, in given
situations, irreplaceable and essential for materials containing radionuclides of natural
original living, such as some basic building materials and foodstuffs. Other commodities,
such as a number of consumer products, may be considered superfluous. It is not
appropriate to use the same criteria for these different situations. In addition, it should berecalled that international and national guidance exists on exemption for individual
consumer products, usually expressed in terms of an annual dose of a few hundredths ofa millisievert.” Moreover, the Commission underlined that: “Intervention exemption
levels should not be used, either explicitly or implicitly, for relaxing the limits imposed on
the activity of radionuclides that may be released from practices. In particular, theyshould not be used for clearing the recycling of materials resulting from thedecommissioning of practices (these situations are better handled with the criteria of
exemption for practices) 63 .
(119) Legislators and regulators could judge trade in commodities containing small
amounts of radionuclides as a ‘practice’ or as an ‘intervention’. Trade is a human activity
that may cause an increase exposure, so it fits the usual regulatory definition of a practice
to be regulated. However, trade is not conventionally thought of as a practice, and indeed
the Commission has treated it in the context of intervention. If regulators treat the
problem as an intervention they may wish to drop the term exemption from ‘intervention
exemption level’ and just use ‘intervention level’. In this case it is the regulatory bodythat is intervening and without its intervention the trade would continue without any
regulatory requirements being applied. Obviously, the regulatory body cannot exempt
itself from intervening. Therefore, there seems to have been a degeneracy of concept in
the use of the term intervention exemption level, rather like a double negative. If there isjust one boundary in the ‘regulation space’ – below it no restrictions, above it specified
controls – then this double-barrelled label that seems to come at the one level from
opposite directions is probably not needed. Intervention level may be sufficient because it
defines the level above which intervention takes place; that is, above which requirements
may be placed on the trader. Regulatory concepts and terminology are difficult enoughwithout making them unnecessarily tortuous and complex, but some regulators may wish
to continue to use the term ‘intervention exemption level’, while clearly explaining that it
is a level below which the person responsible for the trade is exempted from applying any
controls otherwise required by the regulatory body following its intervention. As it can beseen below, the term preferred internationally has been simply ‘radiological criteria in
commodities’.
63
In ICRP Publication 82 [ICRP, 1999], the Commission then stated… [thus]…”it would be illogical to allow the annual dosecomponents attributable to commodities and amenable to intervention even to approach [the recommended] level. Natural
background exposure causes annual doses of at least a few millisieverts per annum and, taking account of possible annual doses from
authorized practices, this leaves an upper bound of the order of a few millisieverts per annum for the annual doses from allcommodities to be exempted from intervention. It is not likely that several types of commodities would be simultaneous sources of highexposure to any given individual.”(120) Following the Commission’s advice on commodities, the policy-making organs of
the IAEA tackled the issue. The IAEA General Conference decided that the IAEA, in
collaboration with the competent organs of the United Nations and with the specialized
agencies concerned, should develop “radiological criteria for long-lived radionuclides incommodities, particularly foodstuffs and wood” 64 . After a large number of consultations,which included consultations with the Commission, in September 2004 the IAEA policymaking organs [IAEA, 2004 (a)] approved a final resolution on radiological criteria forradionuclides in commodities. The established levels for non-edibles commodities were
issued in an international safety guide on the application of the concepts of exclusion,
exemption and clearance [IAEA, 2004 (b)], which provides values of activity
concentration of radionuclides (both natural and artificial) in bulk amounts of materials
that would be applicable to international trade. 65 They can also be used for the purposesof exclusion 66 ; exemption 67 ; and clearance 68 . A graded approach consistent with therequirement of optimization of protection would be applied 69 in the event of values
exceeding the values prescribed. It is to be noted that the values for activity concentrationin non-edible commodities, which have been agreed internationally, are not limited to‘artificial’ radionuclides but include ‘natural’ radionuclides as well. The value for theradionuclides in the primordial chains (headed by 238U, 235U and 232Th) is l000 Bq kg-1
and for potassium-40 is 10000 Bq kg-1.
(121) Similarly, the FAO/WHO Codex Alimentarius Commission 70 (CAC) has
developed levels for artificial and natural radionuclides in foodstuffs. [Codex
Alimentarius, 1991] [Codex Alimentarius, 2004](122) At the same time the World Health Organization (WHO), has developed specificguidance levels for radionuclides in drinking-water. The levels have been established in
the third edition of the WHO’s Guidelines for Drinking-Water Quality 71 [WHO, 2004].
(123) The Commission has been following the above-described developments ofinternational radiological criteria on commodities, noting that they establish de facto
exclusion levels of activity or radionuclide concentration for any material at about 1 Bq
kg-1 for α emitting radionuclides and at about 10 Bq kg-1 for β and γ emitting
radionuclides. Observing that such levels are minute and difficult to monitor, theCommission consider that they can therefore be taken to be unamenable to control in

64

Resolution GC(44)/RES/15.
IAEA Safety Standards: Safety Guide RS-G-1.7 (http://www-ns.iaea.org/downloads/drafts/ds161.pdf ).
See BSS, paragraph 1.4.
67
See BSS, paragraphs 2.17 and 2.18, and Schedule I – particularly sentence (d) in footnote 36
68
See BSS, paragraph 2.19
69
See BSS, paragraph 2.8
70
The Codex Alimentarius Commmission is a body of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and theWorld Health Organization (WHO) charged with developing the Codex Alimentarius, or the food code, which has become the seminal
global reference point for consumers, food producers and processors, national food control agencies and the international food trade.
Both FAO and WHO cosponsor the BSS. The Codex Alimentarius provides the basis for the BSS generic action levels of radioactivity
for foodstuffs.
71
WHO published the first edition of Guidelines for drinking-water quality in 1984 and 1985. In 1993, a second edition was
published.
The
third
editionofthe
Guidelines
has
been
recently
approved.
(See
http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/dwq/gdwq3_9.pdf)
6566

practice. The Commission also notes that the international agreements establish muchhigher values, which are radionuclide-related, for generic and universal exemption.
(124) Furthermore, the Commission notes that according to these international
agreements, non-edible naturally occurring radioactive materials may be generically
exempted when the activities are as high as l000 Bq kg-1 for any of the radionuclides ofthe primordial chains and 10000 Bq kg-1 for potassium-40, in spite of the fact that undersome hypothetical scenarios relatively high individual doses can be attributable toexposure to those materials. These levels may in fact be considered to be excluded fromlegislation for any practical purpose, except in the case of building materials that may
require special treatment (see earlier).
(125) The Commission now considers that these international agreements provide agood basis of a generic and universal nature for recommending exemption levels forradionucleides in commodities. They are applicable for radioactivity concentration in
non-edible materials, in foodstuff and in drinking water, for both artificial and naturalradionuclides.
6.5.1. Exempting Commodities in the Aftermath of an Emergency(126) In its recommendations on radiological protection in prolonged exposure
situations in ICRP Publication 82 [ICRP, 1999] and in the aftermath of a terrorist attackin ICRP Publication 96 [ICRP, 2005], the Commission addressed the issue of large
amount of materials, including foodstuff and water, remaining contaminated in the eventof a radiological emergency. The Commission recognized that the internationally agreed
radiological criteria for commodities described above would provide an adequate level ofprotection in such event. Furthermore, in ICRP Publication 82 [ICRP, 1999], theCommission recommended how to deal with commodities that are produced in an area
affected by the emergency, which present a particularly difficult situation. If thecorresponding activity levels are higher than those in produce from neighboring areas,
issues of market acceptance could arise, particularly if there are trans-boundary
movements of the commodities. The Commission continues to consider that if the annual
doses in the area affected by the accident are acceptable because the intervention strategy
has been optimized, the situation outside the affected area will also be acceptable because
the individual annual doses elsewhere from the use of commodities produced in theaffected area would materials containing radionuclides of natural originally not be higher
than those in the affected area. However, the production of commodities in areas affectedby an emergency could commence some years after the event; this possibility should beconsidered in any intervention strategy applied after the event. If the restrictions oncommodities produced in the area affected by an emergency have not been lifted,
production of the restricted commodities should not be restarted; conversely, if therestrictions have been lifted, production can be restarted. If an increase in production is
proposed, it could proceed subject to appropriate justification. In circumstances whererestrictions have been lifted as part of a decision to return to normal living, theresumption and potential increase of production in the affected area should have been
considered as part of that decision and should not require further consideration.

6.6. Low-level Radioactive Waste(127) Any beneficial practices involving the use of radioactive materials obviously giverise to radioactive waste that, by definition, should be viewed as one aspect of thepractice. Radioactive waste is the term formally used to mean radioactive material ingaseous, liquid or solid form for which no further use is foreseen. Waste disposal is theterm used to describe the discarding of waste with no intention of retrieval, which usually
covers the discharge of effluents and the disposal of solid waste. The whole sequence of
operations starting with the generation of waste and ending with disposal is usuallytermed waste management. Radioactive waste management should be placed in thecontext of the management of society's waste in general. The Joint Convention for the
Safety of Spent Fuel Management and Radioactive Waste Management provide theinternational regulatory framework for safe waste management that has been accepted by
the parties to that convention [IAEA, 2003].
(128) The management and disposal of low-level radioactive waste has been linked tothe issue of the scope of radiological protection regulations for the simple reason
exempted wastes and residues cannot have a regulated management and disposal. The
Commission continues to believe that controlled releases of radioactive materials fromapproved practices are governed by authorization of discharges and the overallmanagement of radioactive waste should be governed by specific regulations following
the specific Commission recommendations [ICRP, 1985 (b) and 1998]. However, theCommission also believe that when the condition for exemption within the system, or
clearance, has been achieved, the materials for which control can be relinquished should
not be considered for radioactive waste management anymore. They can be either
recycled or treated as conventional wastes.
7. DEFINING RADIOLOGICAL PROTECTION REGULATIONS(129) Within the context described in the previous Sections, the Commission has reexamined both of its previous recommendations related to the scope of regulatory
instruments for radiological protection. Furthermore, the Commission has reviewed thefundamental principles of exclusion and exemption and the international agreements
reached on this subject under the aegis of international intergovernmental organizations.
On the basis of the discussion in this report, the Commission provides below its
recommendations for defining the scope of radiological protection regulations.
(130) The Commission’s overall position on the issue of regulatory scope continues to bethat radiological protection regulations need not be established to cover exposure
situations that are deemed to be unamenable to control. Moreover, provided that every
individual is afforded an acceptable level of protection, regulatory requirements may berelinquished if they are unwarranted because the societal efforts needed for theirapplication are deemed to be disproportionate to the saving in radiation detriment they

would achieve 72 . Such regulations and requirements would be deemed to be unjustified
and the protection provided by them would probably not be optimal.
(131) The main concepts for achieving the above position continue to be the exclusionfrom radiological protection legislation of those radiation exposure situations that cannot
be regulated and the exemption from the full system of regulations of those non-excluded
situations that need not be regulated. These concepts are ethically valid, as they are
entirely consistent with principles of good governance: governments have obligations not
to allow societal resources to be squandered on unproductive legislation and fruitlessregulatory control and not to limit individual freedoms unnecessarily. The concepts canbe considered a conceptual variant of the Commission’s generic principle of justification– the continuing need to do more good than harm in decisions involving radiation
exposures – and to support the principle of optimization of protection when applied toregulatory control.
(132) Thus the above-described Commission’s position covers both the criterion ofunamenability to control that has traditionally been used for exclusion from thelegislation, and the criterion of unwarranted control that has usually been sought for
exemption from regulatory requirements. While the Commission considers these criteriainterlinked with the legal doctrine of de minimis non curat lex and de minimis non curat
praetor, it prefers not to become involved in the legal mechanisms that jurisdictions
employ to give effect to the intent of legislation. This is because diverse cultural
approaches exist to regulatory control. Some national cultures are prone to include as
many situations as possible within the scope of the legislation and even of regulatory
control, perhaps because regulatory bodies may feel they might otherwise lack regulatory
instruments to deal with situations that arise and they would like to control but that havebeen declared to be beyond the reach of the law. Conversely, other cultures seem more
pragmatic about regulatory control and feel they could deal with situations as they arise,with provisions subject to a due process of appeal against flawed judgements by theregulatory body 73 . Thus, it is not the intention of the Commission to recommend tolegislators and regulators how to phrase radiological protection legislation or regulations.
Instead, its recommendations focus on the definition of technical boundaries between
what should be regulated and what may not and leave to national preferences themechanisms through which controls are applied or not applied.
(133) The determination of generic and universal technical boundaries for defining
regulatory scope would involve societal value judgements of a universal nature and it isobvious that is difficult for the Commission to recommend absolute answers. However,where there is international consensus, such as those described in this report, it is usefulto provide generic guidance for the purposes of international standardization. An
indication of international consensus can be inferred from the global adoption by most72

In this context, ‘societal efforts’ includes all relevant efforts and expenditure of resources, both by the regulator and the regulated,
together with any other burden borne by society or opportunity foregone in applying the controls; ‘detriment’ is a generic term
meaning a composite of all measures of harm connected with the agent being regulated, such as exposure to radiation and risk ofaccidental exposure.
73
One fairly common legal strategy in these cultures is the 'exception' or ‘get-out’ clause, which appears in a form similar to:‘Notwithstanding any of the above, (the regulator) may… if it has a need to do so’.

countries of the world not only of the current Commission’s recommendations but also ofinternational standards and other intergovernmental agreements derived from such
recommendations. While this can be considered somewhat self-referential, it isnonetheless a fact that most national standards for regulatory control of radiation are
essentially consistent with the Commission’s recommendations and with the international
requirements derived from them.
7.1. Exclusion from Legislation(134) The Commission recommends that legislative systems for purposes of radiologicalprotection may exclude situations of radiation exposure to:• cosmic radiation at ground level;• radionuclides that are natural constituents of the human body,such as potassium-40;• substances containing an activity concentration of less thanaround 1 Bq per kilogram for α emitting radionuclides andaround 10 Bq per kilogram for β and γ emitting radionuclides
both of artificial origin;• radon in ambient air with activity concentration below 40 Bq m-3;
and• any other radiation exposure situations that be considered to beunamenable to control by any reasonable means.
7.2. Exemption from Regulatory Control(135) The Commission also recommends that the legislative framework should in
addition provide for exemption of radiation exposure situations for which regulation isconsidered unwarranted. However, exemption should not be granted to exposure
situations that are deemed to be unjustifiable, such as the deliberate incorporation ofradioactive substances in food, beverages, cosmetics or any other commodity or productintended for ingestion, inhalation or percutaneous intake by, or application to, a humanbeing, and the frivolous use of radioactive substances in products such as toys andpersonal jewellery or adornments. Moreover, potential exposure situations where theexposure may be uncertain but, if it occurs, significant cannot be exempted.
(136) Exposure situations to cosmic radiation above ground level are obvious candidates
for exemption. There are extraordinary situations, for instance in space travel, wherecosmic radiation doses may be substantial. While these extreme situations may need to becovered by regulatory instruments it is not obvious what those instruments could
effectively do to control the exposure.
(137) While the criteria for exemption are basically decisions of national regulators to betaken on a case-by-case basis, the Commission wishes to suggest the universal use of thegeneric criteria that have been developed by international intergovernmentalorganizations and which seem to be commonly accepted. This would promote a muchneeded international consistency in matter of regulatory scope.

(138) Taking into account the ubiquity of naturally occurring radioactive material and theinternational agreements reached on whether to control these materials, legislators may
provide either for empowering regulators to establish a generic regulatory exemption forsuch materials, or depending of national practice for their straightforward exclusion fromlegislative instruments. The conditions for such generic exemption would be that theactivity concentrations of the radionuclides in the primordial uranium and thorium series
should be lower than around 1000 Bq kg-1 and of potassium-40 lower than around 10000
Bq kg-1. However, building materials may warrant a more restrictive consideration of thesum of the activity concentrations of uranium-238, thorium-232 and potassium-40.
(139) While exposure situations to ambient radon are not generally subjected to aregulatory process, and the concept of exemption in this case is more elusive, theCommission suggests that exemption can be considered for ambient radon (i) in
dwellings provided that the time-averaged radon concentration does not exceed aminimum value of 200 Bq m-3 and (ii) in workplaces provided that the time-averaged
radon concentration does not exceed a minimum value of 500 Bq m-3.
(140) The Commission notes the international agreements reached on radiologicalcriteria for foodstuff and drinking water under the aegis ofthe Codex Alimentarious
Commission [Codex Alimentarius, 2004] and the World Health Organization [WHO,2004] and considers that foodstuff and drinking-water containing radionuclides in
activity concentrations smaller than those specified in thise agreements may beconsidered as candidates for automatic exemption from regulatory requirements,
including those for notification, registration or licensing and subsequent inspection.
(141) The Commission considers that exemption of situations involving exposure to
non-edible radioactive materials can be established on the basis of the activity or activity
concentration in these materials. The Commission notes the various international
agreements reached on radiological criteria for these materials and consider that suchsituations may be considered as candidates for automatic exemption from regulatory
requirements, including those for notification, registration or licensing and subsequent
inspection, under the following conditions:• the activity, at any one time, of material in a practice, should not exceed the values
specified in the BSS (see [IAEA, 1996], Schedule 1, Table I-1), or• the activity concentration in materials in a practice in amounts of 1 ton or less should
not exceed the values specified in the BSS (see [IAEA, 1996] Schedule 1, Table I-1);
while in transport, the activity of material should not exceed the values specified in
the Transport Regulations [IAEA, 2004 (c)], or the radioactivity concentration ofmaterials in transport irrespective of their amount should not exceed the values
specified in the Transport Regulations [IAEA, 2004 (c)], or• the activity concentration in materials, irrespective of their amount, in a practice orfor unrestricted release from a practice shall not exceed the values specified in theguidance on Application of the Concepts of Exclusion, Exemption and Clearance[IAEA, 2004 (b)] and established in the Resolution GC(44)/RES/15 of the IAEA
General Conference [IAEA, 2004 (a)].

(142) The necessary condition for exemption is that either the activity or the activity
concentration in the materials does not exceed the applicable value. For mixtures ofradionuclides other than 40K and those in the decay chains headed by 238U, 235U or 232Th,
the applicable value of activity or activity concentration may be determined as follows:1
Xm =f (i )∑i X (i)where f(i) is the fraction of activity or activity concentration of radionuclide i in the
mixture, X(i) is the activity or activity concentration value for the radionuclide i given in
the references in paraghraph (139), and Xm is the derived value of the activity or activity
concentration for exemption. For mixtures of 40K and/or radionuclides in the decay chainsheaded by 238U, 235U or 232Th, the necessary condition for exemption is that, for eachradionuclide, either the activity or activity concentration does not exceed the applicablevalue.
(143) Deliberate dilution of material (as opposed to the dilution that takes place innormal operations when radioactivity is not a consideration) to meet the recommended
values of activity concentration given should not be permitted without the prior approvalof the regulatory authorities. The Commission notes that while the recommended
approach for management of radioactive waste is the treatment, reduction in volume, andcontainment of radionuclides, for some types of waste, however, dilution may be theoptimum regulatory option. For instance, dilution of waste from minerals processing
operations, in which the only radionuclides in significant concentrations are 40K or thosein the decay chains headed by 238U, 235U or 232Th, may be permitted on the grounds that
this is nothing more than re-establishing the original natural concentration of the ore.
(144) The Commission also recommends that the following sources of exposure may beconsidered as candidates for a generic exemption of universal application:• Apparatuses and devices emitting adventitious radiation, which are of a typeapproved by the Regulatory Authority and which meet the following criteria: they do
not cause in original operating conditions an ambient dose equivalent rate or adirectional dose equivalent rate, as appropriate, exceeding around 1 μSv h-1, at a
distance of 0.1 m from any accessible surface of the apparatus; or, the maximum
energy of the emitted radiation is no greater than around 5 keV.
• Apparatuses and devices containing radioactive substances, which are of a typeapproved by the Regulatory Authority and are not otherwise exempted provided that:the radioactive substances are in the form of sealed sources that effectively prevent
any contact with radioactive substances or their leakage; and, in normal operating
conditions, they do not cause an ambient dose equivalent rate or a directional dose
equivalent rate, as appropriate, exceeding around 1 μSv h-1 at a distance of 0.1 m fromany accessible surface of the apparatus.
(145) Regulatory authorities may wish still to keep in force some requirements for the
notification, and in some cases even for the registration, of specific sources complying

with the criteria for exemption described in this report. Such decisions are a matter fornational legal practice.
(146) Exposure to any discharge of radioactive material into the environment, if it isduly authorized by the competent authority and complies with the requirements of theCommission’s system of radiological protection, need not be subject to further control.
(147) Separate recommendations may be needed for sources causing rare circumstancesof exposure, such as from radioactive releases and residues in the aftermath of accidents
or acts of war or terrorism involving radiation exposure. Moreover, the levels above may
be unnecessarily restrictive in some situations. Regulators always have the option to
exempt at higher levels if they judge that by exempting a source of exposure its
radiological protection would be optimised.
7.3. Concluding Reflections(148) Whether the legislative principles of de minimis non curat lex or ‘exclusion’, orde minimis non curat prætor or ‘exemption’ are used to give legal effect to the various
components of the recommendations in this report depends on national regulatory andlegal practice. The Commission is sensitive to the fact that throughout the world there aredifferent legislative cultures that are the origin of diverse regulatory approaches. The
concept of defining what is 'controllable' up front through a system of defined scope iscertainly consistent with international standards, but it need not be the only approach, andindeed it may well be unacceptable to some countries. Thus, while the Commission
recognises the mechanisms of exclusion and exemption for determining regulatory scope,
it is careful about being categorical on their use by national authorities. The Commission
wishes to stress that the controllability of radiation exposure is an issue that can beaddressed on a situation-by-situation basis and through the principle of optimization ofprotection, but also points out that the quantitative recommendations in this report can beused to solve in practice the problem of defining the scope of radiological protection
regulations.

REFERENCES

Codex Alimentarius, 1991. Levels for Radionuclides, vol. 1, Section 6.1. Codex
Alimentarius Commission Joint Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations/World Health Organization Food Standards Programme World HealthOrganization, Geneva.
Codex Alimentarius, 2004. Proposed Draft Revised Guideline Levels for Radionuclides
in Foods following Accidental Nuclear Contamination for Use in International Trade(CAC/GL 5-1989), including Guideline Levels for Long-term Use. CX/FAC 04/36/35.
Committee on Food Additives and Contaminants of the Codex Alimentarius
Commission.
EU, 1999. EUROPEAN COMMISSION, Radiological principles concerning the naturalradioactivity of building materials, RP 122, Office for Official Publications of theEuropean Communities, Luxembourg (1999).
EU, 2001. EUROPEAN COMMISSION, Practical use of the concepts of clearance andexemption, Part II: Application of the concepts of exemption and clearance to naturalradiation sources, Radiation protection 122, Office for Official Publications of theEuropean Communities, Luxembourg (2001).
Green, 1993. B.M.R. Green, J.S. Hughes, P.R. Lomas, Radiation Atlas -- Natural Sourcesof Ionizing Radiation in Europe, Final Report by NRPB for the Commission of theEuropean Communities, Rep. EUR 14470, Office for Official Publications of theEuropean Communities, Luxembourg (1993).
IAEA, 1988. Principles for the Exemption of Radiation Sources and Practices from
Regulatory Control. Safety Series 89. International Atomic Energy, Vienna, Austria.
IAEA, 1996. International Basic Safety Standards for Protection against Ionizing
Radiation and for the Safety of Radiation Sources. Safety Standards. Safety Series 115.
International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna.
IAEA, 2003. The Joint Convention for the Safety of Spent Fuel Management andRadioactive Waste Management. International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna.
IAEA, 2004 (a). Measures to Strengthen International Cooperation in Nuclear Radiation
and Transport Safety and Waste Management. Resolution of the IAEA General
Conference GC(48)/RES/10 under 805 A., 4., pt. 23; Radiological Criteria forRadionuclides in Commodities. International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna.
IAEA, 2004 (b). Application of the Concepts of Exclusion, Exemption and Clearance.
IAEA Safety Guide RS-G-1.7. International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna.
(http://www-ns.iaea.org/downloads/drafts/ds161.pdf )IAEA, 2004 (c). Regulations for the Safe Transport of Radioactive Material, 1996 Edition(As Amended 2003), Safety Requirements, Safety Standards Series No. TS-R-1, IAEA,
2004 (Date of Issue: 7 September 2004).
[IAEA, 2005]. Draft of an international safety guide to provide guidance to theapplication of the requirements for intervention in certain specific situations of chronic
exposure to natural radiation sources, IAEA (in preparation)
ICRP, 1960. Recommendations of the International Commission on RadiologicalProtection Report of Committee III on Protection against X-rays up to Energies of 3 MeV
and Beta- and Gamma-rays from Sealed Sources (1960). ICRP Publicution3,
PergamonPress, Oxford, 1960.
ICRP, 1970. Recommendations of the International Commission on RadiologicalProtection: A Report of ICRP Committee 3 On Protection against Ionizing Radiationfrom External Sources, ICRP Publication 15, Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1970.
ICRP, 1982. Protection Against Ionizing Radiation In The Teaching Of Science. ICRP
Publication 36.
ICRP, 1983. Cost-benefit analysis in the optimization of radiation protection. ICRP
Publication 37, Annals of the ICRP 30 (2/3).
ICRP, 1985 (a) Principles of Monitoring for the Radiation Protection of the Population.
ICRP Publication 43, Annals of the ICRP 15 (1).
ICRP, 1985 (b). Radiation Protection Principles for the Disposal of Solid Radioactive
Waste. ICRP Publication 46, Annals of the ICRP 15 (4).
ICRP, 1989. Optimization and decision-making in radiological protection. ICRP
Publication 55, Annals of the ICRP 20 (1).
ICRP, 1991. 1990 Recommendations of the International Commission on RadiologicalProtection. ICRP Publication 60, Ann. ICRP 21(1–3).
ICRP, 1991b) Principles for Intervention for Protection of the Public in a Radiological
Emergency. ICRP Publication 63, Annals of the ICRP 22 (4).
ICRP, 1993 (a). Protection from Potential Exposure: A Conceptual Framework. ICRP
Publication 64, Annals of the ICRP 23 (1).
ICRP, 1993 (b). Protection Against Radon-222 at Home and at Work. ICRP Publication
65, Annals of the ICRP 23 (2).

ICRP, 1997. General Principles for the Radiation Protection of Workers. ICRP
Publication 75, Annals of the ICRP 27 (1).
ICRP, 1998. Radiation protection recommendations as applied to the disposal of longlived solid radioactive waste. ICRP Publication 81, Ann. ICRP 28(4).
ICRP, 1999. Protection of the public in situations of prolonged radiation exposure: theapplication of the Commission’s s system of radiological protection to controllable
radiation exposure due to natural sources and long-lived radioactive residues. ICRP
Publication 82. Ann. ICRP 29(1/2).
ICRP, 2005. Protecting people against radiation exposure in the event of a radiologicalattack. ICRP Publication 96.
Maxwell S. Catching some rays. Business Traveller. Volume XXIX, December 2005January 2006, p. 38/8. www.businesstraveller.com
WHO, 2004. Guidelines for Drinking-water Quality, third ed (available at the WHO
website: http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/dwq/gdwq3_9.pdf). World HealthOrganisation.
UNSCEAR, 1993. Sources and Effects of Ionizing Radiation. United Nations ScientificCommittee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation 1993 Report to the General Assembly,
with Scientific Annexes. UN Publication Sales No. E. 941X 2. United Nations, New
York, NY, USA.
UNSCEAR, 2000. United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic
Radiation 2000 Report to the General Assembly, with Scientific Annexes.
UNSCEAR, 2005. Scientific Secretariat of the United Nations Scientific Committee on
the Effects of Atomic Radiation. Draft papers for delegates (unpublished).